Lewis et al v. Chandler et al

Filing 6

ORDER : The plaintiff's amended complaint is accepted. (Dkt. No. 5.) On the courts own motion, defendants James Martin and Lieutenant Kemmeren are dismissed as defendants on preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The clerk is di rected to: (1) issue summonses for service of the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 5) on defendants Chandler, Gladhill, and Grygiel by the U.S. Marshal; and (2) mail the plaintiff three blank USM-285 (Marshals service) forms, a Magistrate Judge Consent Fo rm, and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order. The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve the defendants. The court advises the plaintiff that a completed USM-285 (Marshals service) form is required for each named defendant. The Marshal will not attempt service on the defendants unless and until the required forms are received. Therefore, the plaintiff must complete service forms for each defendant and return those forms to the Clerk of Court in care of the Prisoner Correspondent within thirty days of the date of this order. [See STATEMENT] Signed by the Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 1/16/2015. Mailed notice (jp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Peter A. Lewis (#A-82902),
Plaintiff,
v.
Nedra Chandler, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 50206
Judge Frederick J. Kapala

ORDER
The plaintiff’s amended complaint is accepted. (Dkt. No. 5.) On the court’s own motion,
defendants James Martin and Lieutenant Kemmeren are dismissed as defendants on preliminary
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The clerk is directed to: (1) issue summonses for service
of the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 5) on defendants Chandler, Gladhill, and Grygiel by the U.S.
Marshal; and (2) mail the plaintiff three blank USM-285 (Marshals service) forms, a Magistrate
Judge Consent Form, and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order.
The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve the defendants. The court advises the
plaintiff that a completed USM-285 (Marshals service) form is required for each named
defendant. The Marshal will not attempt service on the defendants unless and until the required
forms are received. Therefore, the plaintiff must complete service forms for each defendant and
return those forms to the Clerk of Court in care of the Prisoner Correspondent within thirty days
of the date of this order.
STATEMENT
The plaintiff, an Illinois state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, officials at Dixon Correctional
Center, violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by retaliating against him for the filing of
grievances.
The plaintiff’s original complaint improperly joined claims against unrelated Defendants.
Therefore, the plaintiff was given leave to submit an amended complaint, which is now before
the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Named as defendants are Warden Nedra
Chandler, Lieutenant Kemmeren, grievance officer James Martin, correctional officer Gladhill,
and property officer Grygiel.
The plaintiff alleges that in February 2013, he filed two grievances against correctional
officers Perry and Sanders as a result of unrelated incidents. The plaintiff contends that he gave
those grievances to his counselor, Libberton, but the counselor failed to file them, so the plaintiff
resubmitted the two grievances, as well as a grievance against Libberton. The plaintiff alleges
that correctional officers retaliated against him by shaking down his cell every other day.
In particular, on May 28, 2013, correctional officer Gladhill performed a shakedown of

his cell, and took his permits for certain belongings, including his television and lamp. The
plaintiff was then found guilty of having unauthorized property at an adjustment committee
hearing. The plaintiff contends that property officer Grygiel falsely told the committee that the
plaintiff had a permit for the lamp, but not the television. The plaintiff contends that the charges
against him were false, and were concocted in retaliation for his previously filed grievances.
Lieutenant Kemmeren supervised the adjustment committee.
The plaintiff spoke with the warden, Nedra Chandler, about the incident, and Chandler
told him she would return his television. The plaintiff obtained his trust fund statement showing
that he had purchased the television and sent it to Chandler and Lieutenant Kemmeren, but
received no response from either.
The plaintiff filed grievances against Gladhill and Grygiel, alleging that they wrongly
took his television, and that Grygiel gave false information when he told the committee that the
plaintiff did not have a permit for the television. The grievance officer, James Martin, denied his
grievances, and Warden Chandler subsequently transferred him to another prison (the plaintiff is
now held at Robinson Correctional Center) in retaliation for his complaints.
On February 1, 2014, the plaintiff received his television and lamp back from the property
room at Dixon Correctional Center. The television and the lamp were broken, and the box in
which they were returned contained magazines with homosexual content.
Prisoners are entitled to use available grievance procedures without threat of
recrimination. Hoskins v. Lenear, 395 F.3d 372, 375 (7th Cir. 2005). A prisoner’s retaliation
claim is subject to a liberal notice pleading standard. Doyle v. Pasquino, 207 Fed. App’x 713,
714 (7th Cir. 2006). “The ‘bare minimum’ in a retaliation claim are the facts that would apprise
the defendants of what the plaintiff did to provoke the alleged retaliation and what they did in
response.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
Here, the plaintiff meets this standard as to Gladhill, Grygiel, and Chandler. While a
more fully developed record may belie the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendants must respond to
the complaint. Nothing in this order, which is based on a preliminary review of the complaint,
precludes any legal argument that the defendants may advance in response to the complaint.
As to defendant Martin, the grievance officer, the plaintiff merely alleges that he wrongly
decided the plaintiff’s grievance. This does not amount to retaliation and does not state a claim.
See Owens v. Hinsely, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding that “the alleged mishandling
of [plaintiff’s] grievances by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying
conduct states no claim.”) Similarly, as to defendant Kemmeren, the plaintiff’s complaint seems
to be that the adjustment committee did not conduct a thorough enough investigation into his
claims. This is insufficient to state a claim for retaliation.
The court directs the clerk to issue summonses for service of the complaint on defendants
Gladhill, Grygiel, and Chandler. The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve the
defendants. The court advises the plaintiff that a completed USM-285 (Marshals service) form is
required for each named defendant. The Marshal will not attempt service on the defendants
unless and until the required forms are received. Therefore, the plaintiff must complete service
forms for each defendant and return those forms to the Clerk of Court in care of the Prisoner
Correspondent within thirty days of the date of this order.
The U.S. Marshal is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve the defendants. With
2

respect to former correctional employees who no longer can be found at the work address
provided by the plaintiff, the Illinois Department of Corrections shall furnish the Marshal with
the defendant’s last-known 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 send a request for
waiver of service to the defendants in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before
attempting personal service.
The plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of
Court in care of the Prisoner Correspondent. The plaintiff must send an exact copy of any court
filing to the defendants [or to defense counsel, once an attorney has entered an appearance on
behalf of the 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 the plaintiff.

Date: January 16, 2015
FREDERICK J. KAPALA
District Judge

3