Wright v. Doe et al

Filing 10

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 5/14/2018. See written Order. This case is now in the process of service. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portabilit y and Accountability Act. The clerk is directed to substitute Victor Calloway as the name of Defendant John Doe (warden). The clerk is directed to terminate John Doe (grievance officer) and IDOC as defendants. The clerk is directed to attempt service on Victor Calloway pursuant to the standard procedures. Plaintiff's motion for counsel 3 is denied, with leave to renew upon demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his own counsel. (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 14 May, 2018 01:55:52 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EUGENE WRIGHT,

v.
JOHN DOE,

et al.

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )

18-2056

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This case is before the court for a merit review of the plaintiff's
claims. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to “screen” the
plaintiff’s complaint, and through such process to identify and
dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However,
conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts
must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation
omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at Danville
Correctional Center (“Danville”), prison officials did not respond to
his requests to be placed on a list of inmates who observe
Ramadan. When Plaintiff’s inquired as to the status of this request,
he alleges that prison officials told him his request was not timely.
Page 1 of 5

Plaintiff states a claim under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–1(a), and the First
Amendment’s free exercise clause for the alleged refusal to
accommodate his religious beliefs. See Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct.
853 (2015). Plaintiff identified the warden as a John Doe
defendant. Accordingly, the Court will substitute Victor Calloway,
Danville’s warden, for Defendant John Doe (warden).
Defendants John Doe (grievance officer) and IDOC will be
dismissed as no plausible inference arises that the grievance officer
was responsible for the deprivation Plaintiff suffered, and because
IDOC is not amenable to suit. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 60910 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative
complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation.”); Will v.
Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a
State[,] nor its officials acting in their official capacities are
“persons” under § 1983.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states a claim
under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc–1(a), and the First Amendment’s free exercise
clause against Victor Calloway and Defendant John Doe (chaplain).
Any additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at
the court’s discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2.
This case is now in the process of service. The plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants
before filing any motions, in order to give the defendants notice and
an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied
as premature. The plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the
court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the court.
3.
The court will attempt service on the defendants by
mailing each defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60
Page 2 of 5

days from the date the waiver is sent to file an answer. If the
defendants have not filed answers or appeared through counsel
within 90 days of the entry of this order, the plaintiff may file a
motion requesting the status of service. After the defendants have
been served, the court will enter an order setting discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines.
4.
With respect to a defendant who no longer works at the
address provided by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that
defendant worked while at that address shall provide to the clerk
said defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used only
for effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding addresses
shall be retained only by the clerk and shall not be maintained in
the public docket nor disclosed by the clerk.
5.
The defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the
date the waiver is sent by the clerk. A motion to dismiss is not an
answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate under
the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be
to the issues and claims stated in this opinion. In general, an
answer sets forth the defendants' positions. The court does not rule
on the merits of those positions unless and until a motion is filed by
the defendants. Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary
or will be considered.
6.
This district uses electronic filing, which means that,
after defense counsel has filed an appearance, defense counsel will
automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or other paper
filed by the plaintiff with the clerk. The plaintiff does not need to
mail to defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that the
plaintiff has filed with the clerk. However, this does not apply to
discovery requests and responses. Discovery requests and
responses are not filed with the clerk. The plaintiff must mail his
discovery requests and responses directly to defendants' counsel.
Discovery requests or responses sent to the clerk will be returned
unfiled, unless they are attached to and the subject of a motion to
compel. Discovery does not begin until defense counsel has filed an
appearance and the court has entered a scheduling order, which
will explain the discovery process in more detail.
Page 3 of 5

7.
Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to
depose the plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for the
defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition.
8.
The plaintiff shall immediately notify the court, in
writing, of any change in his mailing address and telephone
number. The plaintiff's failure to notify the court of a change in
mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this
lawsuit, with prejudice.
9.
If a defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service
to the clerk within 30 days after the waiver is sent, the court will
take appropriate steps to effect formal service through the U.S.
Marshals service on that defendant and will require that defendant
to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
10. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified
protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.
11. The clerk is directed to substitute Victor Calloway as the
name of Defendant John Doe (warden).
12. The clerk is directed to terminate John Doe (grievance
officer) and IDOC as defendants.
13. The clerk is directed to attempt service on Victor
Calloway pursuant to the standard procedures.
14. Plaintiff’s motion for counsel [3] is denied, with leave to
renew upon demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his own
counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). This
typically requires writing to several lawyers and attaching the
responses. If Plaintiff renews his motion, he should set forth how
far he has gone in school, any jobs he has held inside and outside
of prison, any classes he has taken in prison, and any prior
litigation experience he has.

Page 4 of 5

ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2018
/s/ Harold A. Baker
________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5