Brown v. Brookhart

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 4/22/2013. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KERRY L. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DEANNA M. BROOKHART,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-00312-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Plaintiff Kerry L. Brown was recently released from the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”). Brown has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging that while he was housed at Robinson Correctional Center, Defendant Deanna M.
Brookhart issued him unfounded disciplinary tickets, which ultimately caused him to be held in
custody eight months longer than his scheduled release date.

Plaintiff contends that the

disciplinary tickets were issued in violation of IDOC Rule 504.30(b), which requires an
employee to witness or receive notice of the commission of a disciplinary violation. Brown
further asserts that the issuance of the tickets violated his Sixth Amendment right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusations against him, and his right under the Fourteenth
Amendment to due process and the equal protection of the law. Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages, injunctive relief, and for eight months to be deducted from his term of probation. The
case is now before the Court for a threshold review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
After fully considering the allegations in the complaint, the Court concludes that this action is
subject to summary dismissal.

Page 1 of 3

Plaintiff’s claims go to the validity of the length of his sentence because of his loss of
good conduct credits. In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997), the Supreme Court held
that claims which “necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation of ... [an inmate’s] goodtime credits” are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 until the prison disciplinary decision has
otherwise been invalidated, for example by expungement, a state court order, or a writ of habeas
corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). “[T]he Heck requirement is an
essential element of a [Section] 1983 claim; indeed, the claim does not arise until the
requirement is met.” Dixon v. Chrans, 101 F.3d 1228, 1230 (7th Cir. 1996), citing Rooding v.
Peters, 92 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 1996). The complaint does not suggest that Plaintiff has had the
disciplinary decision invalidated. He must first seek return of his good time through state
remedies and/or via a federal habeas corpus action before he can state a § 1983 claim on these
allegations. Accordingly, this action must be dismissed.
Additionally, Plaintiff has pending a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
2) and a motion for service of process at government expense (Doc. 3).

Under 28

U.S.C.1915(a)(1), a civil case may be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees, if the
plaintiff “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets [he] possesses [showing] that
the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” Plaintiff has done so in the
instant case, demonstrating that he has no appreciable assets.

However, because this action is

being dismissed, these pending motions are moot.
Disposition
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, for the reasons stated, this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice. All pending motions are deemed moot and the Clerk of Court
shall CLOSE THIS CASE and enter judgment accordingly.

Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff is ADVISED that if he wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a notice of
appeal with this court within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). The
appellate filing fee is $455.00. Any motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set
forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C). A timely
motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal
deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 22, 2013
s/ G. Patrick Murphy
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3