Williamson v. Twaddell et al
Filing
7
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 08/25/2014. Rule 16 Deadline 10/24/2014. (LN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 27 August, 2014 04:03:35 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CLARENCE BERNARD
WILLIAMSON III, a/k/a M.
HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM TWADDELL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-3193
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in the Western Illinois
Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil case.
The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 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).
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and has also held a merit review hearing
in order to give the plaintiff a chance to personally explain his claims to the Court.
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming his
constitutional rights were violated while housed at Hill Correctional Center. The
plaintiff is a Messianic Black Hebrew Israelite. He filed a complaint and request for
injunctive relief claiming that Chaplain Twaddell and the Doe Program Director have
refused to accommodate his religion. He requests kosher meals, access to Messianic
service, baptism, a prayer cap and a ATanach@ religious book. Plaintiff had a prior suit
against Twaddell which was settled. He claims that Twaddell has breached that
settlement agreement. He also claims violations of the First Amendment; free exercise
of his religion, retaliation; Fifth Amendment - Equal Protection, and violations of the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the Illinois
Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Court declines to assert pendent jurisdiction over the breach of settlement
agreement claim as this should be filed in the Illinois Court of Claims. Therefore, that
claim is dismissed. The plaintiff has stated federal claims as detailed below and,
Page 1 of 3
accordingly, the case will be sent for service.
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 sufficiently states constitutional claims against Chaplain
Twaddell and the John Doe Program Director for infringement of First Amendment free
exercise of religion and retaliation; Fifth Amendment equal protection; RLUIPA; and
the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 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 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
Page 2 of 3
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.
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 attempt service on the defendants pursuant to the
standard procedures.
Entered this 25th day of August, 2014.
/s/Harold A. Baker
_____________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?