McClure v. Western Correctional Center et al
Filing
6
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/5/2012. The merit review scheduled for 6/11/2012 is cancelled. Western Illinois Correctional Center is dismissed as a Defendant. Richard Young, the Warden of Western Illinois Correctional Center, is added as a Defendant in his official capacity. This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. 16 on 7/30/2012 at 1:30 pm (or as soon as the Court can reach the case) before Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Plaintiff shall appear by video conference. Defense counsel shall appear in person. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 05 June, 2012 04:14:52 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
ANTHONY MCCLURE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTERN CORRECTIONAL
CENTER,
JOHN AND JANE DOE,
Defendants.
12-CV-3116
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in Hill
Correctional Center, pursues claims arising from alleged interference with
his legal mail. The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court is required by § 1915A to review a Complaint filed by a
prisoner against a governmental entity or officer and, through such
1
process, to identify cognizable claims, dismissing any claim that is
“frivolous, malicious, or 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 § 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
2
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
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).
ANALYSIS
During Plaintiff’s incarceration in Western Illinois Correctional
Center, he corresponded with the Uptown People’s Law Center, for the
purpose of obtaining representation in an unidentified case. The Law
Center allegedly mailed confidential legal mail to Plaintiff which was
received by the prison’s mail room on February 27, 2012. Plaintiff
alleges that the mail room staff never delivered this confidential mail,
instead destroying the letter. Plaintiff asks for injunctive relief and
3
money damages.
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot, since he has been
transferred to Hill Correctional Center, and there is no suggestion that
his legal mail is being interfered with at Hill. However, he does state an
arguable First Amendment claim. Prisoners have a First Amendment
right to send and receive mail. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 782 (7th
Cir. 1999). Additionally, prisoners also have a constitutional right to
have confidential legal mail opened in their presence to check for
contraband, rather than outside their presence.
Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 577 (1974). However, sporadic or negligent violations of
these general principles do not rise to Constitutional violations. See
Guarjardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 804 (7th Cir. 2010);
Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 572-73 (7th Cir.2000). Those
determinations must await a developed factual record. At this point,
Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim.
However, Plaintiff identifies no individuals for service, since he does
not know who is responsible. Western Illinois Correctional Center is not
4
a proper Defendant. The Court will add Warden Richard Young for the
purpose of assisting Plaintiff in identifying the correct Defendant(s).
Once counsel has appeared for Defendant Young, Plaintiff should send a
discovery request to Young asking for the names of the mail room staff
working at Western during the relevant time period. See Donald v. Cook
County Sheriff’s Dept., 95 F.3d 548, 556 (7th Cir. 1996)(to assist a pro
se plaintiff in identifying defendants, court may “allow[] the case to
proceed to discovery against high-level administrators with the
expectation that they will identify the officials personally responsible.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) The merit review scheduled for June 11, 2012 is cancelled. The
clerk is directed to vacate the writ and to notify Plaintiff’s prison of the
cancellation.
2) Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a federal constitutional claim
arising from the alleged interference with his incoming legal mail. Any
additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at the Court’s
5
discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
3) Western Illinois Correctional Center is dismissed as a
Defendant.
4) Richard Young, the Warden of Western Illinois Correctional
Center, is added as a Defendant in his official capacity.
5) The Clerk is directed to send to Defendant Young pursuant to
this District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for
Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3) a copy of the Complaint;
and, 4) this order.
6) If 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 on Defendant and will require
him to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
7) If Defendant no longer works at Western Illinois Correctional
Center, the litigation coordinator at the prison shall inform the Clerk of
6
the name of the current Warden of Western Illinois Correctional Center
and shall deliver the waiver of service to the current Warden. The
current Warden shall be substituted as a Defendant automatically under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
8) Defendant shall file an answer within the time prescribed by
Local Rule. 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.
9) Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been served
but who is not represented by counsel a copy of every filing submitted by
Plaintiff for consideration by the Court, and shall also file a certificate of
service stating the date on which the copy was mailed. Any paper
received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed
with the Clerk or that fails to include a required certificate of service will
be stricken by the Court.
10) Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not
7
send copies of his filings to that Defendant or to that Defendant's
counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file Plaintiff's document electronically
and send a notice of electronic filing to defense counsel. The notice of
electronic filing shall constitute service on Defendants pursuant to Local
Rule 5.3. If electronic service on Defendants is not available, Plaintiff
will be notified and instructed accordingly.
11) This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16 on July 30, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. (or as soon as the Court can
reach the case) before U. S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Plaintiff
shall appear by video conference. Defense counsel shall appear in person.
The Clerk is directed to give Plaintiff's place of confinement notice of the
date and time of the conference, and to issue the appropriate process to
secure the Plaintiff's presence at the conference.
12) Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall
arrange the time for the depositions.
13) Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court of any change in
8
his mailing address and telephone number. 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.
14) The Clerk is to notify the parties of their option to consent to
disposition of this case before a United States Magistrate Judge by
providing Plaintiff with a magistrate consent form. Upon receipt of a
signed consent from Plaintiff, the Clerk shall forward the consent to
Defendants for consideration.
ENTERED:
June 5, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?