Shehadeh v. Godinez et al

Filing 8

OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 5/29/2013. The merit review hearing scheduled for 6/3/2013 is cancelled. This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 on 7/22/2013, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the Court can reach the case, before U. S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough by telephone conference. The conference will be cancelled if service has been accomplished and no pending issues need discussion. (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 29 May, 2013 02:45:36 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JAMAL SHEHADEH,
Plaintiff,
v.
SALVADOR GODINEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

13-CV-3103

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this case from his
incarceration in Big Muddy Correctional Center. He seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on claims arising from his termination
from a substance abuse program. Plaintiff was released from
prison after filing this case, but the Court must still review the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
ALLEGATIONS
In August, 2011, Plaintiff enrolled in a substance abuse
treatment program offered through the prison, which provided
Plaintiff an opportunity to earn good conduct credit. Plaintiff
Page 1 of 6 

observed fraudulent practices in the operation of the program. In
particular, he observed that Defendants Behrends and Barnette
were falsifying treatment records to show that some inmates had
participated in treatment when they had not. He also observed
Behrends and Barnette falsifying records of inmates whom they
sought to eject from the program for retaliatory reasons.
Plaintiff filed a grievance reporting the improper and
fraudulent behavior of the individuals running the substance abuse
treatment program. In retaliation, he was terminated from the
program without any notice or an opportunity to be heard. His
records were allegedly falsified to justify Plaintiff's termination from
the program. Plaintiff filed additional grievances which were
denied, even though IDOC officials allegedly acknowledged that the
substance abuse treatment program was operating in violation of
IDOC rules and regulations.
Plaintiff filed an action in state court for mandamus relief. On
March 15, 2013, the state court granted Plaintiff's request, directing
the IDOC Director to credit Plaintiff with 45 days of good conduct
credit. Plaintiff followed with this lawsuit in federal court.

Page 2 of 6 

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff states a plausible First Amendment claim that he was
terminated from the substance abuse treatment program in
retaliation for his grievances. He also states a claim that he was
denied procedural due process of law before he was terminated from
the program.
Plaintiff alleges that all the Defendants played a part in the
constitutional violations, either by causing Plaintiff's termination or
by turning a blind eye to or approving of the termination.
Determining which Defendants were personally responsible must
await a more developed record. All Defendants remain in the case
at this point.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

The merit review scheduled for June 3, 2013 is cancelled.

2)

Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states the following
federal claims: 1) First Amendment claim that Defendants
retaliated against Plaintiff for filing grievances; 2) Fourteenth
Amendment procedural due process claim that Plaintiff was
terminated from the substance abuse treatment program without
Page 3 of 6 

procedural due process. This case proceeds solely on the claims
identified in this paragraph. 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.
3)

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.
Marshal’s 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).
4)

With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the

address provided by 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.

Page 4 of 6 

5)

Defendants 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.
6)

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 shall be stricken by the Court.
7)

Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff

need not 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.
Page 5 of 6 

8)

This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 on July 22, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the
Court can reach the case, before U. S. District Judge Sue E.
Myerscough by telephone conference. The conference will be
cancelled if service has been accomplished and no pending issues
need discussion.
9)

Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of

any change in 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO
send to each Defendant 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.
ENTERED: May 29, 2013
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 6 of 6