Chesser v. Rivas et al

Filing 271

CLERK'S JUDGMENT. Approved by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/3/2018. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ZACHARY CHESSER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-cv-456-JPG-RJD

HENRY RIVAS, JEFFREY WALTON,
WENDY ROAL, STEVEN CARDONA,
PAUL KELLY, MILTON NEUMANN,
ROBERT ROLOFF, MCCLEARY, WINN,
LESLIE SMITH, APRIL CRUITT, T.
CAPALDO, STEPHEN COLT and J.
SIMMONS,
Defendants.

JUDGMENT
This matter having come before the Court, the issues having been heard, plaintiff Zachary
Chesser having voluntarily dismissed some claims, and the Court having rendered a decision as to
others,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered as follows:
•
•
•
•
•

in favor of defendants Roal, Rivas, Cardona, Roloff, Neumann and Walton on Count 2, a
First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claim based on the restriction on teaching/learning
Arabic;
in favor of defendants Roal, Rivas, Cardona, Roloff, Neumann and Walton on Count 5, a
Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause equal protection claim based on the restriction on
teaching/learning Arabic;
in favor of defendants Roal, Rivas, Cardona, Roloff, Neumann and Walton on Count 6, a
First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claim based on the restriction on wearing short
pants;
in favor of defendants Roal and Walton on Count 21, an access to the courts claim based on
denial or censorship of discovery materials; and
in favor of defendants Roal, Rivas, Roloff, Neumann and Walton on Count 23, a Fifth
Amendment Due Process Clause equal protection claim based on the restriction on short
pants;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following claim is dismissed
with prejudice:
•

Count 20, a First Amendment claim for conspiracy against defendants Roal, Rivas,
Neumann, Smith, Cruitt, Capaldo, Colt and Simmons based on interference with mail and
email;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following claims are dismissed

without prejudice:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Count 1, a claim against defendants Roal, Rivas, Cardona, Roloff, Neumann and Walton
under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act based on the restriction on teaching/learning
Arabic;
Counts 3 and 4 were withdrawn by Chesser by omission from the First Amended
Complaint (Doc. 70);
Count 7, a claim against defendants Walton and McCleary under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act for being served special meals on non-Islamic holidays;
Count 8, a claim against defendants Walton and McCleary under the First Amendment
Free Exercise Clause for being served special meals on non-Islamic holidays;
Count 9, a claim against defendants Walton and McCleary under the First Amendment
Establishment Clause for being served special meals on non-Islamic holidays;
Count 10, a claim against defendants Roloff and McCleary under the First Amendment
Free Exercise Clause for denial of an appropriate special meal on an Islamic holiday;
Count 11; a claim against defendants Roloff and McCleary under the equal protection
guarantee of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause for denial of an appropriate special
meal on an Islamic holiday;
Count 12, a claim against defendants Walton and Winn under the First Amendment
Establishment Clause for giving him a holiday gift bag designed as a Christmas gift on a
non-Islamic holiday;
Count 13, a claim against defendants Roloff and Walton under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act for failure to provide a qualified Imam;
Count 14, a claim against defendant Walton under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
for failure to accommodate some religious fasting;
Count 15, a claim against defendants Roal, Rivas and Neumann under the First
Amendment for retaliation by placement in segregation in November 2011 for writing
letters;
Count 16, a claim against defendants Roal, Rivas, Cardona and Neumann under the First
Amendment for retaliation by placement in segregation in May 2012 for drafting an email;
Count 17, a claim against Cardona and Neumann under the First Amendment for
retaliation by the threat of placement in segregation in June 2012 for drafting an email;
Count 18, a claim against defendants Roal, Rivas and Neumann under the First
Amendment for interference with mail;
Count 19, a claim against defendants Rivas, Smith, Cruitt, Capaldo, Colt and Simmons
under the First Amendment for retaliation by interfering with email;
2

•
•
•

Count 24, a claim against defendants Roloff and Walton under the First Amendment Free
Exercise clause for a ban on a Salafi religious advisor;
Count 25, a claim against defendants Roloff and Walton under the equal protection
guarantee of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause because of the lack of a Salafi
religious advisor; and
Count 27, a claim against Roal, Rivas and Neumann under the First Amendment for
retaliation by placement in segregation in February 2012 for his participation in a Senate
report.

Counts 22 and 26 were not allowed to be added to this case by an amended pleading.

DATED: April 3, 2018

JUSTINE FLANAGAN, Acting Clerk of Court
s/Tina Gray, Deputy Clerk

Approved:

s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3