Taylor v. Williamson et al

Filing 7

Opinion (See Written Opinion): 1.Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a federal constitutional claim for violation of his First Amendment right to practice his religion. A ny other claims not specifically set forth in this Opinion shall not be included in the case, except at the Court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The p laintiff may proceed on his claim against Defendants Neil Williamson, Terry Durr, William Strayer, Gregory Clemons, and Guy Bouvet. 2. A Scheduling Order shall be entered directing service and setting a Rule 16 conference date. A copy of this Opini on shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order.Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer must be considered a responsive pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and should include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be only to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/01/2011. (VM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 01 August, 2011 08:27:23 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
FRANCHOT B. TAYLOR,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
NEIL WILLIAMSON, ET AL.,
Defendants.

11-CV-3224

)
OPINION

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff, Franchot B. Taylor, is incarcerated by the Illinois
Department of Corrections in the Sheridan Correctional Center, located in
Sheridan, Illinois. He complains about incidents that took place while he was
detained in the Sangamon County Jail, located in Springfield, Illinois. He names
Sheriff Neil Williamson, Warden Terry Durr, Lt. William Strayer, Sgt. Gregory
Clemons, and Sgt. Guy Bouvet as Defendants.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to review a Complaint filed by
a prisoner against a governmental entity or officer, and through such process to
identify cognizable claims, dismissing any claim that is “frivolous, malicious, or

1

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . . . .” A hearing is held if
necessary to assist the Court in this review, but, in this case, the Court concludes
that no hearing is necessary. The Complaint and its attachments are clear enough
on their own for this court to perform its merit review of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The review standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is the same as the notice
pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Zimmerman v.
Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000). To state a claim, the allegations must
set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough
detail to give “‘fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.’” EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007),
quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(add’l citation
omitted). The factual “allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a
right to relief, raising that possibility above a ‘speculative level’”. Id., quoting Bell
Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged . . . Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic, 550

2

U.S. at 555-56. However, pro se pleadings are liberally construed when applying
this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009).
FACTS
Plaintiff claims the dates of the occurrences that he complains about range
from September 27, 2010, through March 18, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that he is a
“Hebrew Israelite”. Therefore, when he entered the Sangamon County Jail on
September 27, 2010, he requested meals consistent with his religious belief, but
that request was denied. Plaintiff alleges that he specifically asked for either a
vegan meal or a Kosher meal and that either would satisfy his religious diet.
Although Plaintiff requested religious diet meals several times and filed several
grievances therefor, Defendants denied Plaintiff’s requests and grievances.
Plaintiff claims the denials caused him both emotional and physical harm.
ANALYSIS
This Court concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim for a violation
of his First Amendment right to practice his religious belief. An inmate’s right to
practice his religion to the extent it does not unduly burden prison administration is
well established, including the right to a religious diet that is nutritionally
adequate. See Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46, 47-49 (7th Cir. 1990).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section
3

1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a federal constitutional claim for
violation of his First Amendment right to practice his religion. Any other
claims not specifically set forth in this Opinion shall not be included in the
case, except at the Court’s discretion on motion by a party for good cause
shown, or by leave of Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
The plaintiff may proceed on his claim against Defendants Neil Williamson,
Terry Durr, William Strayer, Gregory Clemons, and Guy Bouvet.
2.

A Scheduling Order shall be entered directing service and setting a Rule 16
conference date. A copy of this Opinion shall be served with the Complaint
and Scheduling Order.

3.

Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by Local Rule. A
motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer must be considered a
responsive pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and should
include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and
subsequent pleadings shall be only to the issues and claims stated in this
Opinion.

ENTERED: August 1, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

5