Chencinski v. Reeder et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING ; 44 Report and Recommendations.; granting 19 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 41 Motion to Stay. The only remaining claims are retaliation claims against Defendants Reeder and Berkley. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 05/30/13. (dkd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT CHENCINSKI, #B-75443,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL REEDER, LT. BERKLEY,
TIMOTHY QUIGLEY, AND MARCUS
MARVIN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-CV- 0817-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
deprivations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against
by Defendants Quigley, Berkley, and Reeder when he was convicted of charges in a false
disciplinary ticket. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Quigley and Marvin denied
him due process when the adjustment committee failed to conduct an impartial
investigation into the charges, he was denied the opportunity to put on a defense
through specifically identified witness testimony, and the adjustment committee
accepted the statements of confidential informants without a proper inquiry into their
reliability. Plaintiff was subsequently found guilty of the offense at the disciplinary

Page 1 of 4

hearing and punished by a demotion to C grade, one- year segregation, the revocation of
one year good time credit, a disciplinary transfer to Pontiac, and six months of contact
visit restrictions. (Doc. 1, Ex. C).
On October 23, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff’s
claims against them stemming from the adjustment committee’s decision on the
allegedly falsified disciplinary ticket are barred by the Heck doctrine.

See Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a response to the
Motion to Dismiss, arguing that he has filed the appropriate state action challenging the
decision of the adjustment committee. Likewise, he argues that he has regained all but
forty-five days of his good time credit back, and therefore, his cause of action is no
longer barred by the Heck doctrine. Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams issued a Report
and Recommendation on this motion on April 12, 2013 (Doc. 44). No timely objections
have been filed.
In Heck, the Supreme Court stated that a prisoner’s § 1983 claim is not cognizable
if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction or sentence.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Thus, a prisoner’s claim for damages is
barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate the conviction or sentence has previously
been invalidated. The Supreme Court extended the Heck doctrine to civil rights claims
arising out of prison disciplinary hearings. Burd v. Sessler, 702 F.3d 429, 434 (7th Cir.
2012) (citing Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (“[R]espondent’s claim[s] . . .
that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed, [are] not
Page 2 of 4

congnizable under § 1983.”).
Magistrate Judge Williams’ Report recommends granting Defendants’ motion to
dismiss because the claims are in fact barred by Heck. Specifically, Judge Williams
explains that a finding that a disciplinary ticket was issued falsely or that the hearing
denied Plaintiff due process would necessarily imply the invalidity of the hearing’s
result. Further, Judge Williams finds that Plaintiff has not made the “favorable
termination” showing as some of Plaintiff’s good time credit remains outstanding, and
he has not demonstrated that there has been a decision in his favor.
Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation
are made, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court need not conduct a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). While a de
novo review is not required here, the Court has considered the record and Magistrate
Judge William’s Report and Recommendation and fully agrees with the findings,
analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge Williams.

The Court concludes that

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Reeder and Berkley for issuing and signing off on a
false disciplinary ticket and Plaintiff’s due process claims against Defendant Berkley,
Quigley and Marvin should be dismissed.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Williams’ Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 44) and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19). Plaintiff’s retaliation
claims against Defendants Reeder and Berkley regarding the false disciplinary ticket,
and his due process claims against Defendants Berkley, Quigley and Marvin are
Page 3 of 4

DISMISSED without prejudice.

The only remaining claims are retaliation claims

against Defendants Reeder and Berkley. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Stay (Doc. 41) his due process claims is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 30, 2013
s/Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4