Thompson v. Roeckeman et al

Filing 5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before July 13, 2015, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint by the prescribed deadline will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to state a colorable claim, and a strike will be assessed for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Amended Pleadings due by 7/13/2015). Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/9/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DION THOMPSON,
No. M18222,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ZACHARY ROECKEMAN,
MICHAEL SANDERS, and
VENTURES JACKSON,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 15-cv-00551-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Dion Thompson is an inmate currently housed in Big Muddy River Correctional
Center. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff brings this action with respect to the imposition
of disciplinary restrictions and the conditions of his confinement during the disciplinary period.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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).
An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers
to a claim that “no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.” Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d
1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). 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). The claim of entitlement to relief must
Page 1 of 4

cross “the line between possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At this juncture, the factual
allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth
Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Complaint
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a disciplinary report for disobeying a direct
order and refusing a housing assignment. Defendants Michael Sanders and Ventures J. Jackson
comprised the Adjustment Committee presiding over the disciplinary proceedings. Plaintiff
pleaded guilty to the charge (see Doc. 1, pp. 5, 9). As discipline, he was placed in segregation
for three days, demoted to C Grade for one month, and had his day room, commissary, audiovisual, and gym/yard privileges restricted for one month (Doc. 1, p. 9). Warden Zachary
Roeckeman concurred with the disciple meted out by the Adjustment Committee (Doc. 1, p. 10).
While “on confinement” and restricted from the day room, plaintiff, who suffers seizures,
was not allowed to shower or exercise outside of his cell, visual checks were not performed, and
his “confinement exceeded 7 consecutive days of 15 days in a 30-day period” (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Also, medical staff was not made aware of his confinement.
Plaintiff alleges that all three defendants, Warden Roeckeman and Adjustment
Committee members Sanders and Jackson: (1) imposed disciplinary restrictions without
following “20 Ill. Admin. Codes of ‘Placement Confinement;’” and (2) subjected him to cruel
and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Doc. 1, p. 5). Compensatory
and punitive damages are sought (Doc. 1, p. 6). The Court designates these claims as “Count 1”
and “Count 2,” respectively.

Page 2 of 4

Discussion
For the reasons that follow, as pleaded, all claims—Counts 1 and 2—fail to state a
colorable constitutional claim.
Any failure of the Adjustment Committee and Warden Roeckeman to follow a state law
or regulation, by itself, does not violate the Constitution and is, therefore, not actionable under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 119 (1992); Scott v.
Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003). Similarly, imposing three days of segregation and
the other restrictions on privileges for 30 days, does not, in and of itself, constitute cruel and
unusual punishment. Not only are the time periods brief, but the restrictions themselves do not
deprive Plaintiff of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” such as adequate food,
clothing, shelter, medical care, or safety. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).
With respect to the conditions of confinement during the 30-day disciplinary period, the
complaint does not suggest that any of the three named defendants were personally involved in
imposing the particular conditions, and the respondeat superior doctrine (supervisory liability) is
not applicable in a Section 1983 action. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009);
Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2015).
Dismissal of the complaint shall be without prejudice, and Plaintiff will be granted an
opportunity to amend his complaint.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated, the complaint (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before July 13, 2015, Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint by the prescribed deadline will result

Page 3 of 4

in the dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to state a colorable claim, and a strike
will be assessed for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
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: June 9, 2015

______________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4