Dobbey v. Randle et al

Filing 7

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 9/8/2011: The Clerk is directed to: (1) file the amended complaint; (2) terminate Defendants Walker, Pierce, McCann, Shaw, Ramos, Hosey, Thomas, Kissell, Thompson, Zhang, and Williams purs uant to the amended complaint and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); (3) terminate Defendants Bass, Randle, Miller, and Hardy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; (4) issue summonses for service of the amended complaint on Defendants Reed and Turner by the U.S. Marshal; and (5) send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order. Mailed notice (For further details see Written Opinion) (nf, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

ROBERT M. DOW, JR.

CASE NUMBER

11 C 3000

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

9/8/11

Lester Dobbey (#R-16237) vs. Michael Randle, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The Clerk is directed to: (1) file the amended complaint; (2) terminate Defendants Walker, Pierce, McCann,
Shaw, Ramos, Hosey, Thomas, Kissell, Thompson, Zhang, and Williams pursuant to the amended complaint and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); (3) terminate Defendants Bass, Randle, Miller, and Hardy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A;
(4) issue summonses for service of the amended complaint on Defendants Reed and Turner by the U.S. Marshal;
and (5) send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with
a copy of this order.
O

Docketing to mail notices.

[For further details see text below.]

STATEMENT
Plaintiff, an Illinois state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants, correctional officials, violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by retaliating
against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected
to false discipline and unnecessary shakedowns of his cell because he filed lawsuits against correctional
employees. This case was severed from Dobbey v. Randle, Case No. 10 C 3965 (N.D. Ill.), as the Court
previously found that Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint contained misjoined claims. See
Minute Order of May 4, 2011; George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff subsequently
submitted an amended complaint in connection with his retaliation claim.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the amended
complaint. Here, accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated a colorable
federal cause of action against Defendants Reed and Turner. Correctional officials may not retaliate against a
prisoner for engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment, including filing lawsuits. See, e.g., Bridges
v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009); Nitz v. Doe, No. 08 C 0334, 2010 WL 4823363, *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov.
18, 2010). While a more fully developed record may belie Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendants Turner and Reed
must respond to the complaint.
(CONTINUED)
mjm

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT (continued)
However, the complaint is dismissed as to administrative officials who denied Plaintiff’s ensuing grievance
and appeals. Illinois’ statutory grievance procedures do not create a protected interest. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81
F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). Any right to a grievance is a procedural one, not substantive. Id. Supervisory
officials’ failure to find that retaliation occurred and to rule favorably on Plaintiff’s grievance therefore is not
actionable under Section 1983.
The Clerk shall issue summonses forthwith for service of the amended complaint. The United States
Marshals Service is appointed to serve defendants Turner and Reed. Any service forms necessary for Plaintiff to
complete will be sent by the Marshal as appropriate to serve Defendants with process. The U.S. Marshal is directed
to make all reasonable efforts to serve Defendants. If either Defendant can no longer be found at the work address
provided by Plaintiff, the Illinois Department of Corrections shall furnish the Marshal with that Defendant’s lastknown address. The information shall be used only for purposes of effectuating service [or for proof of service,
should a dispute arise] and any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Marshal. Address
information shall not be maintained in the Court file, nor disclosed by the Marshal. The Marshal is authorized to
mail a request for waiver of service to Defendants in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before
attempting personal service.
Plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care of the
Prisoner Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the Court with the original plus a complete judge’s copy, including
any exhibits, of every document filed. In addition, Plaintiff must send an exact copy of any Court filing to
Defendants [or to defense counsel, once an attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Defendants]. Every
document filed with the Court must include a certificate of service stating to whom exact copies were mailed and
the date of mailing. Any paper that is sent directly to the judge or that otherwise fails to comply with these
instructions may be disregarded by the Court or returned to Plaintiff.

Page 2 of 2