Rodgers v. Foster et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal of this case shall not bar Plaintiff from seeking damages in the Illinois Court of Claims.Plaintiff is ADVISED that this dismissal shall count as one of his three allotted strikes under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/21/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
A.C. RODGERS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CRAIG FOSTER, and
CHAPLAN HERBERER [sic.],
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-00256-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff A.C. Rodgers is currently incarcerated at Vandalia Correctional Center
(“Vandalia”). (Doc. 1.) Proceeding pro se, he has filed a Complaint against Vandalia’s warden
and chaplain, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by damaging his prayer rug (Id.
at 5). Rodgers seeks monetary and specific relief (Id. at 6).
This matter is now before the Court for a preliminary review of Rodgers’ Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the Court shall review a “complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
government entity.” During this preliminary review under § 1915A, the Court “shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint,” if the complaint “is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or if it “seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” For the reasons stated below,
Rodgers’ Complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice.

Page 1 of 4

Facts
The Complaint alleges the following facts. Rodgers is a devout Muslim. He prays five
times a day using a special prayer rug as a devotional device (Id. at 5). Approximately a year
ago, Chaplain Herber, chaplain at Vandalia, damaged his prayer rug by cutting off the rug’s
tassels (Id.). The incident has caused Rodgers to experience depression, anxiety “and a profound
distrust in Chaplan [sic.] services” at Vandalia (Id.).
Discussion
The Court observes that Rodgers has checked the box on the complaint form indicating
he is bringing suit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671–
2680. The FTCA provides jurisdiction for suits against the United States regarding torts
committed by federal officials. However, neither defendant is a federal official. They are both
agents of the State of Illinois. Thus, Rodger’s FTCA claim must be dismissed without prejudice.
Because Rodgers is proceeding pro se, the Court will construe the Complaint as
proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides jurisdiction for constitutional claims against
state agents acting under color of law. While Rodgers claims that Chaplain Herber’s action
constituted cruel and unusual punishment (id..), 1 the only constitutional right that might be
implicated by these facts is Rodgers’ right, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from
deprivations of his property by state actors without due process of law.
To state a claim under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff
must establish a deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law; if the state
provides an adequate remedy, Rodgers has no civil rights claim. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
1

The complaint does not state a claim for “cruel and unusual punishment” within the meaning of the Eighth
Amendment. Rodgers’ mental distress over the damage of his prayer rug does not rise to the level of a significant
deprivation of a basic human need, such as food, medical care, physical safety, or sanitation, which would trigger
Eighth Amendment scrutiny. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
837 (1970).

Page 2 of 4

517, 530-36 (1984) (availability of damages remedy in state claims court is an adequate, postdeprivation remedy). The Seventh Circuit has found that Illinois provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy in an action for damages in the Illinois Court of Claims. Murdock v.
Washington, 193 F.3d 510, 513 (7th Cir. 1999); Stewart v. McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031, 1036 (7th Cir.
1993); 705 ILL. COMP. STAT. 505/8 (1995). Therefore, Rodgers’ civil rights claim is dismissed
without prejudice.
Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that this civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal of this case shall not bar
Plaintiff from seeking damages in the Illinois Court of Claims.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that this dismissal shall count as one of his three allotted “strikes”
under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff's obligation to pay the filing fee for this
action was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350.00 remains due
and payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, his notice of appeal must be filed with this Court
within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(A)(1)(A). A 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). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00
appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725–26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181
F.3d 857, 858–59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
Moreover, if the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur another “strike.”
A timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59€ may toll the 30–day
appeal deadline. FED. R. APP. P. 4(A)(4).
Page 3 of 4

The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 21, 2016

s/ STACI M. YANDLE
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4