Walker v. Clay

Filing 11

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/11/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CRAIG WALKER # N-92287,
a/k/a SHARIF ABDU-RAHEEM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KAHALAH A. CLAY,
COURTNEY DOE,1
BARB HILL,
and JACQUELYN DOE,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 15-cv-550-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
(Doc. 10), filed September 11, 2015, at the direction of the Court. The original complaint, which
named only St. Clair County Circuit Clerk Kahalah Clay as a Defendant, was dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, because there was no indication that
Defendant Clay was personally involved in or even aware of her subordinates’ actions (Doc. 5).
This civil rights suit was filed while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Southwestern Illinois
Correctional Center in East St. Louis, Illinois. He has since been released from the custody of
the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) (Docs. 8, 10).
The Amended Complaint (Doc. 10)
Plaintiff now includes three additional Defendants in the action – the Clerk’s office
employees who mishandled his attempts to file a civil complaint.
1

Plaintiff uses the surname “Doe” for both Defendant Courtney and Defendant Jacquelyn, as their actual
surnames are unknown.
Page 1 of 7

On August 8, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a petition for mandamus (Doc. 10, pp. 7-9, 15) to
Defendant Clay for filing. The petition sought to compel IDOC officials to give him 180 days of
credit against his prison sentence, which would have resulted in his earlier release from prison.
After six weeks passed without any acknowledgement of his petition from the Clerk’s
office, Plaintiff wrote a letter of inquiry on September 30, 2014 (Doc. 10, p. 10). Defendant
Courtney Doe (Deputy Clerk) wrote back to inform him that nothing could be found under his
name (Doc. 10, p. 11).
On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff resubmitted his mandamus petition. It was promptly
returned to him along with an application to proceed as a poor person. Plaintiff completed that
application and returned it along with the mandamus petition.
Six weeks later, having heard nothing further, Plaintiff wrote another letter of inquiry.
On February 11, 2015, Defendant Barb Hill (Traffic Supervisor) wrote to Plaintiff to say that
again, no case under Plaintiff’s name could be found, and asking him to provide his birth date for
her to check further (Doc. 10, p. 12).
On March 9, 2015, Plaintiff once again submitted his last copy of the mandamus petition,
along with a letter asking for it to be filed (Doc. 10, p. 13). It was not filed, however, and his
documents were returned to him along with a letter dated March 11, 2015, from Defendant
Jacquelyn Doe (Deputy Clerk), which stated: “Sorry but we have looked at all the information
and you are not in our system maybe you need to try another county [sic].” (Doc. 10, p. 14).
Plaintiff asserts that each of the Defendants deprived him of his constitutional right to
access the courts when they “negligently and outright refused to file his petition for mandamus”
(Doc. 10, p. 5). Defendant Clay “is legally responsible for the overall operation of her office and
each of her subordinates.” Id. Because of their failure to file his mandamus petition, Plaintiff

Page 2 of 7

was not given the additional good conduct credit that he sought, and served 180 days more in
prison than he should have.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages (Doc. 10, p. 6).
Merits Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Under § 1915A, the Court is required to screen the complaint, and dismiss any claims
that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek
monetary relief from an immune defendant.
Prisoners have a fundamental right of meaningful access to the courts, as do free persons.
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). “The right of individuals to pursue legal redress for
claims that have a reasonable basis in law or fact is protected by the First Amendment right to
petition and the Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process.” Snyder v. Nolen, 380
F.3d 279, 291 (7th Cir. 2004). In order to state a cognizable claim for denial of access to the
courts, a plaintiff must explain how the defendant’s action caused an actual or threatened
detriment to a non-frivolous legal claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-53 (1996); Howland
v. Kilquist, 833 F.2d 639, 642-43 (7th Cir. 1987); Hossman v. Sprandlin, 812 F.2d 1019, 102122 (7th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff has done so in the instant complaint – because his mandamus action
was never filed by the Clerk’s office employee Defendants, he lost the opportunity to seek earlier
release from prison. At this stage, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s proposed mandamus
action would have been frivolous.
Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated a
colorable federal cause of action against Defendants Hill, Courtney Doe, and Jacquelyn Doe for
denying him access to the courts (Count 1), in that they failed to file his mandamus petition. His
claim may proceed against these three Defendants in their individual and official capacities.

Page 3 of 7

Plaintiff again seeks to hold Defendant Clay liable on the basis of her supervisory
authority (Count 2).

While Defendant Clay, as the Circuit Clerk, is responsible for the

operations of her office, this alone is not enough to impose liability on her in a § 1983 action for
the misconduct of her subordinate employees, as the Court explained in the order dismissing the
original complaint. See, e.g., Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008); Sanville v.
McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of respondeat superior –
supervisory liability – does not apply to civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Only if the supervisor knows about her employees’ misconduct and facilitates, approves,
condones, or turns a blind eye to the unconstitutional actions, can she be held liable for that
misconduct. Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Jones v.
City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 992-93 (7th Cir. 1988)). The supervisor “must in other words act
either knowingly or with deliberate, reckless indifference.”

Chavez, 251 F.3d at 651.

Additionally, a supervisor who was “responsible for creating the policies, practices and customs
that caused the constitutional deprivations” may have sufficient personal involvement to sustain
a claim against her. Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305 F.3d 603, 615 (7th Cir. 2002).
Mere negligence does not violate the Constitution. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328
(1986); Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 290 (7th Cir. 1995).
As with the original complaint, Plaintiff’s allegations do not indicate that Defendant Clay
knew about the other Defendants’ actions or that she directed or approved their conduct. Nor
does he point to any policy or practice created by Defendant Clay that may have led to their
failure to file Plaintiff’s petition. Based on the complaint as pled, Plaintiff fails to state a claim
against Defendant Clay upon which relief may be granted.
Defendant Clay shall be dismissed without prejudice at this time.

Page 4 of 7

Therefore, Count 2 against

Pending Motion
Plaintiff’s motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 9) shall be referred to the United
States Magistrate Judge for further consideration.
Disposition
COUNT 2 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Defendant CLAY is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants HILL, COURTNEY DOE (Deputy
Clerk), and JACQUELYN DOE (Deputy Clerk): (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 (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.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the Court with the full
names and service addresses for the Defendants whose surnames are unknown.
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.

Page 5 of 7

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 a United States
Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings, which shall include a determination on the
pending motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 9).
Further, this entire matter shall be REFERRED to the United States Magistrate Judge for
disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if all 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, notwithstanding that
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).

Page 6 of 7

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: December 11, 2015

s/J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge

Page 7 of 7