Barrett v. Meyer et al

Filing 7

MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 4/7/15. IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (FDT, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 07 April, 2015 09:33:46 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DONNIE R. BARRETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAWN K. MEYER, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15-3076

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought the present lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. Matter is before the Court for
merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the complaint, the Court takes all
factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729
F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff alleges that a Rushville staff member attempted to hire another inmate to inflict
physical harm upon the Plaintiff. Thereafter, Plaintiff alleges that Rushville officials retaliated
against him for filing a grievance on that issue. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that officials issued
a false disciplinary report against him.
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). “[A] prison official
may not retaliate against a prisoner because that prisoner filed a grievance.” DeWalt v. Carter,
224 F.3d 607, 618 (7th Cir. 2000). The adverse action need not independently violate the

Page 1 of 3

Constitution, rather “a complaint need only allege a chronology of events from which retaliation
may be inferred.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges that, after Plaintiff filed the grievance in question, but prior to issuance of
the disciplinary report, Defendant Hankins summoned Plaintiff to his office and stated that
Plaintiff would regret writing the grievance. From that alleged statement, the issuance of the
disciplinary report appears motivated, at least in part, by Plaintiff’s exercise of a protected First
Amendment right.
The question becomes whether Plaintiff suffered a deprivation that would likely deter
future First Amendment activity. At this point, the alleged deprivation Plaintiff incurred was an
appearance before the Behavioral Committee for a hearing. Plaintiff has not alleged how this
type of deprivation would deter him from the future exercise of his First Amendment rights.
Furthermore, this is not the first time Plaintiff has suffered a deprivation of this sort, yet
continued to file grievances and lawsuits. See Barrett v. Ashby et al, No. 13-CV-3001 (C.D. Ill.
filed January 2, 2013) (only deprivation suffered by Plaintiff was an appearance at a disciplinary
hearing and the receipt of a warning). The fact that Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit on March
11, 2015 suggests that this type of deprivation is not sufficient to deter Plaintiff’s exercise of
protected activity. Nevertheless, Plaintiff could potentially state a claim if he described how the
defendants’ actions in this case are likely to deter the future exercise of protected First
Amendment activity. Therefore, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. If
Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should include the results of the disciplinary
hearing and what punishment, if any, he received.

Page 2 of 3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order
to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the
dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended
complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the
amended complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal
amendments are not accepted.
Entered this 7th day of April, 2015.

_______ ____s/James E. Shadid_ ____ ____
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3