Fields v. Ransom et al

Filing 8

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 11/4/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL FIELDS, #K-52492
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD RANSOM and
C/O QUANT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-01096-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Michael Fields, an inmate currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional
Center (“Menard”), brings this pro se civil rights action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated his rights under
the First and Eighth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
The complaint is now before the Court for a preliminary review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner complaints
to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is required to dismiss any
portion of the complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Complaint
The facts pertinent to the Court’s threshold review are as follows: On August 24,
2010 and again in May 2012, Plaintiff was issued a pair of state eyeglasses at Menard
Page 1 of 8

Correctional Center. (Doc. 1, p. 3). On June 6, 2012, Plaintiff and his cellmate were removed
from their cell for a random shakedown, which resulted in a determination that the cell was
“clean.” Id. at 3 and Ex. 1. Three days later, on June 9, Plaintiff and his cellmate were again
removed from their cell for another random shakedown. Id. at 3. This search was conducted by
Defendants Ransom and Quant, and it resulted in the confiscation of Plaintiff’s and his
cellmate’s eyeglasses. Id. at 3 and Ex. 2, 3, and 3A. Plaintiff has attached a copy of the notice he
received following the confiscation of his glasses, but the quality of the copy is quite poor,
making it difficult for the Court to clearly decipher its contents. However, it appears that the
report identified a pair of eyeglasses with “pointed metal rods” in the earpiece as “minor
contraband.” Id. at Ex. 2.
Six months prior, on December 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a grievance against
Defendant Quant following an incident in which Quant refused to allow Plaintiff to use the
bathroom while Plaintiff was waiting to be seen in the healthcare unit. Id. at Ex. 4. The
bathrooms in the healthcare unit are reserved for staff. Id. When Plaintiff protested and told
Quant, “I need to urinate and have been holding it for the past 30 minutes,” Quant responded,
“So what, I don’t care. You’re going to have to hold it.” Quant then said, “In fact, you’re going
back to the cellhouse.” He then cancelled Plaintiff’s pass and sent Plaintiff back to his cell. Id.
In response to Plaintiff’s grievance, the counselor noted, “Contacted health care unit and verified
bathroom is for staff only. Unable to verify reasons for you not being allowed upstairs.” Id.
On June 25, 2013, Plaintiff and his cellmate were again removed from their cell
for a random shakedown of the cell. Id. at 4. An incident report following the shakedown notes
that no contraband was found. Id. at Ex. 5.
Sometime in late August or early September 2013, Plaintiff had the opportunity to

Page 2 of 8

ask Defendant Ransom why he had taken Plaintiff’s eyeglasses. Defendant Ransom replied,
“You complain too much.” Id. at 4.
Plaintiff filed multiple grievances regarding the confiscation of his eyeglasses and
made several attempts through various channels to ascertain why his eyeglasses had been seized.
Id. at Ex. 6 and 7. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief.
Discussion
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in
accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court
finds it appropriate to organize the claims in Plaintiff’s pro se amended complaint, as shown
below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders,
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does
not constitute an opinion as to their merit.
Count 1:

First Amendment Retaliation Claim
Prison officials may not retaliate against inmates for filing grievances or

otherwise complaining about the conditions of their confinement. See, e.g., Gomez v. Randle,
680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir. 2012); Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2002); DeWalt
v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000). To state a claim of retaliation “[a]ll that need be
specified is the bare minimum facts necessary to put the defendant on notice of the claim so that
he can file an answer.” Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Quant confiscated Plaintiff’s eyeglasses in
retaliation for Plaintiff filing a grievance complaining about Quant in December 2012. Plaintiff
further alleges that Defendant Ransom acknowledged as much when he said that he had
confiscated Plaintiff’s eyeglasses because Plaintiff complains too much.

Page 3 of 8

These retaliatory

actions, Plaintiff contends, violated his rights under the First Amendment.

Even if these

allegations would not be actionable in and of themselves, if the acts were taken in retaliation for
the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, then they are actionable under § 1983. See
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 552 (7th Cir. 2009) (discussing Howland v. Kilquist, 833 F.2d
639, 644 (7th Cir. 1987) ("[A]n act in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected
right is actionable under Section 1983 even if the act, when taken for different reasons, would
have been proper.")); see also Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 810 (7th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)
(retaliatory transfer of a prisoner); Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267, 275 (7th Cir. 1996)
(retaliatory delay in transferring prisoner); Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383, 1389 (8th Cir. 1995)
(retaliatory discipline).
An inmate has a First Amendment right to file grievances about the conditions of
his confinement. See Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir. 2012). At issue here is
whether Plaintiff experienced an adverse action that would likely deter First Amendment activity
in the future, and if the First Amendment activity was “at least a motivating factor” in
Defendants’ decision to confiscate Plaintiff’s eyeglasses. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 551
(7th Cir. 2009). This is a question that cannot be resolved at the pleadings stage of this case.
Thus, Plaintiff may proceed on his retaliation claim against Defendants Ransom and Quant at
this time.
Count 2:

Eighth Amendment Claim
Not all prison conditions trigger Eighth Amendment scrutiny – only deprivations

of basic human needs like food, medical care, sanitation, and physical safety.

Rhodes v.

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981); see also James v. Milwaukee Cnty., 956 F.2d 696, 699 (7th
Cir. 1992). In order to prevail on a conditions of confinement claim, a plaintiff must allege facts

Page 4 of 8

that, if true, would satisfy the objective and subjective components applicable to all Eighth
Amendment claims. McNeil v. Lane, 16 F.3d 123, 124 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Wilson v. Seiter,
501 U.S. 294, 302 (1991). The objective component focuses on the nature of the acts or
practices alleged to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Jackson v. Duckworth, 955 F.2d
21, 22 (7th Cir. 1992). The objective analysis examines whether the conditions of confinement
exceed contemporary bounds of decency of a mature civilized society. Id. The subjective
component requires that a prison official had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson, 501
U.S. at 298; see also McNeil v. Lane, 16 F.3d 123, 124 (7th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment,
but he provides no further explanation or facts to support this claim. Plaintiff does not assert that
Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need nor does he complain
about the conditions of his confinement (outside of the alleged retaliatory acts committed by
Defendants). In fact, nowhere does Plaintiff suggest that he is unable to see without his glasses
or that the glasses that were taken were his only pair. The complaint also does not discuss
whether Plaintiff has attempted to procure another pair of glasses. An action fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Plaintiff’s
bald assertion that Defendants have violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment fails to meet
this standard. Accordingly, Count 2 will be dismissed.
Count 3:

Equal Protection Claim
To state an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must establish that a state actor has

purposely treated him differently than similarly situated persons. Id. A “prison administrative
decision may give rise to an equal protection claim only if the plaintiff can establish that ‘state

Page 5 of 8

officials had purposefully and intentionally discriminated against him.’”

Meriwether v.

Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 415 n.7 (7th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 935 (1987) (citing
Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1104 (7th Cir. 1982)).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a grievance and
complaining too much.

But nowhere does Plaintiff suggest that Defendants treated him

differently than other similarly situated inmates (i.e., other inmates who had eyeglasses similar to
Plaintiff). For this reason, Count 3 will also be dismissed.
In summary, Plaintiff may proceed on his First Amendment retaliation claim
(Count 1) against Defendants Ransom and Quant, in their individual capacities. However, the
Eighth Amendment claim (Count 2) and the Equal Protection claim (Count 3) shall be dismissed.
Pending Motion
Plaintiff’s motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 3) remains pending and shall
be referred to United States Magistrate Judge Williams and addressed in a separate order.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim for damages against
Defendant RANSOM and QUANT on COUNT 1 shall proceed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNTS 2 and 3 are DISMISSED against
all Defendants without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants RANSOM and QUANT: (1)
Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6
(Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the
complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to each Defendant’s place of employment as
identified by Plaintiff. If a Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons

Page 6 of 8

(Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take
appropriate steps to effect formal service on that Defendant, and the Court will require that
Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
With respect to a Defendant who no longer can be found at the work address
provided by Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work
address, or, if not known, the Defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used
only for sending the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service.

Any

documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not
be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants (or upon defense counsel once an
appearance is entered), a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for consideration
by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed a certificate stating the
date on which a true and correct copy of the document was served on Defendants or counsel.
Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk
or that fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to
the complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this action is REFERRED to United States
Magistrate Judge Williams for further pre-trial proceedings, which shall include a determination
on the pending motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 3).
Further, this entire matter shall be REFERRED to United States Magistrate
Judge Williams for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if all

Page 7 of 8

parties consent to such a referral.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment
of costs under § 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, even though
his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 for leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs or
give security for the same, the applicant and his or her attorney were deemed to have entered into
a stipulation that the recovery, if any, secured in the action shall be paid to the Clerk of the
Court, who shall pay therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against plaintiff and remit the balance to
plaintiff. Local Rule 3.1(c)(1).
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the
Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7
days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 4, 2014

s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN_
Chief District Judge

Page 8 of 8