Dabbs v. Godinez et al

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Dabbs had already incurred two strikes for pursuing frivolous litigation. See Dabbs v. Taylor, Case No. 11-cv-0396-JPG (S.D.Ill.); Dabbs v. Tazewell County, Illinois, 08-cv-1153-HAB-JAG (C.D.Ill.). He has incurred a third strike for pursuing this action and is now struck out under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/15/2012. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GREG DABBS, #R73673,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
S. A. GODINEZ, BRETT FINLEY, CARA
)
SMITH, BRYAN GLECKER, ROBERTA
)
FEWS, MARC HODGE, MARC BADER,
)
CHERYL DUNN, DALE HOLMAN,
)
BRYAN HOUSE, IDOC 523 FUND,
)
ILLINOIS CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES )
and SARA DUNN,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 11-CV-0847-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief on a multi-count
complaint against all Defendants, alleging a broad conspiracy to (1) deprive him and other
inmates at Lawrence of their money by illegally overcharging them at the commissary store; (2)
use the money of which inmates were deprived to fund salaries for Dunn, House and Holmes, as
well as funding other employee activities, such as giving employees turkeys at Thanksgiving; (3)
launder the money through the 523 slush fund; (4) make him and other inmates pay for items
such as gloves, hats and shirts that should have been provided to them for free; (5) deprive him
of access to public information that should have been available to him under FOIA; (6) fake
audits in order to keep his “stolen” money, also alleged as “cooking the books”; (7) not enforce
1

policies and standards, which allowed employees to steal Plaintiff’s money; (8) violate his right
of access to the courts by depriving him of resources at the law library, envelopes, copies and
typewriters; (9) blacklist him for contacting various state agencies by issuing false disciplinary
tickets and by depriving him of parole, transfer to a lower security prison and work release; (10)
deprive him of his personal property by damaging his television when he was sent to
segregation; and (11) any further discovered practices or circumstances that violate his rights.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold
review of the complaint. Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
complaint must be DISMISSED and a strike assessed. Plaintiff has simply not asserted claims
that meet the “high standard of plausibility” necessary to allege “a vast, encompassing
conspiracy.” Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967, 971 (7th Cir. 2009).
As the United States Supreme Court explained in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009),
A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged. Two working principles underlie Twombly. First, the tenet that a court
must accept a complaint's allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals
of a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.
Second, determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is contextspecific, requiring the reviewing court to draw on its experience and common
sense.
556 U.S. at 663-64 (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff’s factual allegations are threadbare,
and so sketchy as to not provide Defendants with sufficient notice of Plaintiff’s claims. Brooks
v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[I]in considering the plaintiff's factual
allegations, courts should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a
cause of action or conclusory legal statements.”). Plaintiff’s complaint also lacks specificity
as to individual Defendants, in that he brings his widespread claims en masse against all
2

Defendants. It fails the “experience and common sense” test to suggest that all Defendants –
from the IDOC Director, the Chief Auditor and the Fiscal Deputy Director to the commissary
employees and the librarian - conspired to, inter alia, blacklist him, damage his television and
deny him information to which he was entitled under FOIA.
Even if Plaintiff had made more discrete claims, the Court can discern no
constitutional violation for the alleged overcharging for commissary items and no right to receive
free goods. See, e. g., Holmes v. Williamson, 2011 WL 3320495, at *2 (C.D.Ill. 2011) (“The
Court knows of no constitutional right to be able to purchase commissary items at a certain
price”). Moreover, a claim that IDOC employees are violating contractual or state law pricing
arises under state law and is not a federal constitutional claim. See id.
Claims of fake audits, slush funds, money laundering and allowing employees to
steal Plaintiff’s money are both implausible and not supported by sufficient factual allegations to
state a claim.
Plaintiff’s allegation that he was denied access to the courts is belied by his ability
to file the instant action as well as by his continuing ability to file documents and motions herein.
Lastly, as to Plaintiff’s claim that his television set was damaged when he was moved to
segregation, he has alleged no civil rights claim because Illinois provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy in an action for damages in the Illinois Court of Claims. Hudson v. Palmer,
468 U.S. 517, 530-36 (1984); Murdock v. Washington, 193 F.ed 510, 513 (7th Cir. 1999); 705
ILCS 505/8 (1995).
Accordingly, this case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, which means
that Plaintiff will accumulate one “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3

Pending motions
Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s action is frivolous, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 6), motion for writ of habeas corpus ad
testificandum (Doc. 7), motion requesting a settlement conference (Doc. 8) and motion for
service of process at government expense (Doc. 14).
Disposition
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff’s suit
against Defendants S. A. Godinez, Brett Finley, Cara Smith, Bryan Glecker, Roberta Fews, Marc
Hodge, Marc Bader, Cheryl Dunn, Dale Holman, Bryan House, IDOC 523 Fund, Illinois
Correctional Industries and Sara Dunn for conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights.
Fiorentino v. Biershbach, 64 Fed.Appx. 550, 553 (7th Cir. 2003), citing Gladney v. Pendleton
Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[A] dismissal for failure to state a claim
under § 1915A should be made with prejudice.”).
Dabbs had already incurred two “strikes” for pursuing frivolous litigation. See
Dabbs v. Taylor, Case No. 11-cv-0396-JPG (S.D.Ill.); Dabbs v. Tazewell County, Illinois, 08-cv1153-HAB-JAG (C.D.Ill.). He has incurred a third strike for pursuing this action and is now
“struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Dye v. Bartow, 282 Fed.Appx. 434, 436 (7th Cir.
2008).
This case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 15, 2012

s/Michael R. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge
4