Powers v. Clayton et al

Filing 6

MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is granted 3 . The Clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures; and set an internal court deadline 60 days from the entry of this Order for the Court to check on the status of service. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/2/2015. (GL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 02 February, 2015 08:47:05 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
THOMAS POWERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES CLAYTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14-CV-3306

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and detained in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliation for the exercise of his First
Amendment rights.
The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and
fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who,
within the District Court's sound discretion, would remain without
legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster
v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972).

Page 1 of 9 

Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma
pauperis “at any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in
forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal claim.
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in 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) (quoted
cite omitted).
Allegations
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants denied him access to the
law library, ordered cell shakedowns, reassigned cellmates,
interfered with medical treatment, and issued false disciplinary
reports in retaliation for a previous lawsuit Plaintiff filed against
said Defendants.

Page 2 of 9 

Analysis
To prevail on a retaliation claim, the Plaintiff must show that
he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; he
suffered a deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment
activity in the future; and the First Amendment activity motivated
the decision to take retaliatory action. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d
541, 553 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Clayton
retaliated against him because Plaintiff was assisting other inmates
in the law library. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Clayton
threatened him by stating that he (Defendant) would “make
[Plaintiff’s] life miserable” if Plaintiff continued with said conduct.
Plaintiff alleges a series of cell shakedowns ensued as a result.
Accordingly, the Court cannot rule out a constitutional claim for
retaliation against Defendant Clayton. Cf. Higgason v. Farley, 83
F.3d 807, 810 (7th Cir. 1996) (“If a prisoner is transferred for
exercising his own right of access to the courts, or for assisting
others in exercising their right of access to the courts, he has a
claim under § 1983.” (citations omitted)).
Next, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Scott denied him access
to the law library in retaliation for a previous lawsuit Plaintiff filed
Page 3 of 9 

against him. Plaintiff’s claim of denial of access to the law library
could be an independent claim under § 1983, but not as alleged
because Plaintiff has failed to allege “the connection between the
alleged denial of access to legal materials and an inability to pursue
a legitimate challenge to a conviction, sentence, or prison
conditions.” Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006).
Nevertheless, a claim for retaliation does not require that the
alleged acts of retaliation arise to the level of a constitutional
violation. DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 618 (7th Cir. 2000). “[A]
complaint need only allege a chronology of events from which
retaliation may be inferred.” Id. Plaintiff has alleged that
Defendant Scott has continuously denied him adequate access to
the law library, and has instituted several policies designed to limit
access. The Court cannot rule out a constitutional claim for
retaliation against Defendant Scott.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hankins interfered
with Plaintiff’s prescribed medical treatment by moving him to a
non-ADA compliant cell, and intentionally assigning Plaintiff to
share a cell with an inmate with a known history of sexual violence
against fellow residents. Plaintiff alleges these actions were taken
Page 4 of 9 

in retaliation for a previous lawsuit filed against Defendant
Hankins. Based on these allegations, the Court cannot rule out a
constitutional claim for retaliation against Defendant Hankins.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to challenge the issuance of
disciplinary reports, and the alleged falsity of the allegations
contained therein, Plaintiff’s claims would be barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held
that a prisoner may not challenge the fact or duration of
confinement in a § 1983 action “unless and until the conviction or
sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the
grant of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 489. The Supreme Court
later extended the Heck doctrine to apply to prison disciplinary
hearings. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644-49 (1997);
Lusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018, 1021 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The ‘conviction’
in the prison disciplinary sense is the finding of guilt on the
disciplinary charge….” (citations omitted)). Because Plaintiff
challenges the validity of the disciplinary reports, and further
alleges that the Defendants engaged in said conduct in an effort to
continue his confinement at Rushville TDF, his claims related to the
disciplinary reports and hearings are barred.
Page 5 of 9 

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is granted

(d/e 3). Pursuant to a review of the Complaint, the Court finds that
Plaintiff states a federal constitutional claim for retaliation related
to the denial of access to the law library, cell shakedowns, and
cellmate reassignment only. 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.
2.

The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing

each Defendant a waiver of service. 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).
3.

Defendants have 60 days from service to file an Answer.

If Defendants have not filed Answers or appeared through counsel

Page 6 of 9 

within 60 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion
requesting the status of service.
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.
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
Page 7 of 9 

that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to include a
required certificate of service shall be struck 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.
8.

Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to

depose Plaintiff at Plaintiff's place of confinement. Counsel for
Defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition.
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.

Page 8 of 9 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS
DIRECTED TO: 1) ATTEMPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS
PURSUANT TO THE STANDARD PROCEDURES; AND, 2) SET AN
INTERNAL COURT DEADLINE 60 DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF
THIS ORDER FOR THE COURT TO CHECK ON THE STATUS OF
SERVICE.
ENTERED:

February 2, 2015

FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 9 of 9