Underwood v. Beck et al

Filing 6

MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/29/2016. The 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. The Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint (until 3/30/2016). Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 29 February, 2016 12:04:16 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN LARRY BECK, et al.
)
Defendants. )
JASON L. UNDERWOOD,

15-3309

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at
Sangamon County Jail, brings the present lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment
rights. The matter comes before this Court for merit review under
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).
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) (internal citation omitted).
Page 1 of 4

ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is incarcerated at Sangamon County Jail. Plaintiff
alleges that prison officials improperly removed his fiancée and
child from his visitation list. Plaintiff also alleges that on the same
day his fiancée and child were removed, another individual was
added to his visitation list in an apparent attempt to draw a link
between Plaintiff and this individual. According to Plaintiff, the link
to the new individual is detrimental to his legal position in his
pending criminal matter.
ANALYSIS
Lawful incarceration brings with it the “necessary withdrawal
or limitation of many privileges and rights.” Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 484 (1995). An inmate’s right to familial association is
limited insofar as it conflicts with the legitimate penological
concerns of prison administration. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539
U.S. 126, 131-32 (2003).
To state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, Plaintiff
must allege that he has protected liberty or property interest. The
due process clause does not directly guarantee an inmate’s interest
in unfettered visitation privileges. Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson,
Page 2 of 4

490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989). Only those restrictions that impose an
“atypical and significant hardship” will trigger due process
concerns. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
Plaintiff alleges that jail officials have violated his
constitutional rights by removing his fiancée and child from his
visitation list. Plaintiff alleges the duration of the restriction (“until
further notice”), but he does not provide any indication as to why
these individuals were removed in the first place. Plaintiff also
alludes to a hearing of some type, but does not elaborate on the
nature of the hearing, or whether it was related to the modification
of his visitation list.
Liberally construed, Plaintiff is alleging that jail officials
deprived him of a protected liberty interest without due process.
However, Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that this deprivation may
have occurred after jail officials provided him with a hearing.
Without more information, the Court cannot determine whether
Plaintiff states a claim.
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim at
this time. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint
within 30 days. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint,
Page 3 of 4

Plaintiff should include information regarding the reasons why his
preferred visitors were removed from his visitation list (if he knows),
whether the jail limits the number of individuals who may be on an
inmate’s visitation list, and information regarding whether jail
officials have provided him with a hearing regarding the
modification of his visitation list.
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:

February 29, 2016.

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

Page 4 of 4