Sangraal v. Flagg et al

Filing 5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims in COUNT 22 and COUNT 23, which are unrelated to the claims in COUNTS 1-21 are SEVERED into two new cases. One new case shall contain the claims against JOHN DOE mailroom employee. The other new case shall contain the claims against DEFENDANT KEIM. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 7/6/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BENJAMIN SANGRAAL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JULIUS FLAAG,
JIMMY D. LEEK,
MCCABE,
D. DOWNS,
JOHN A. DRANNAN,
PITTS,
GREG SCHWARTZ,
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON,
STEPHEN A. JOHNSON,
TYSHA A. MATHIS,
MARK A. BURTON,
BRAD RITZHEIMER,
MCCANCE,
TYONE MURRAY,
LUCY HEMKER,
AUSTIN
STEPHEN KEIM, and
UNKNOWN JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS
Defendants.

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

Case No. 16−cv–0550-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge:
Plaintiff Benjamin Sangraal, formerly an inmate at Centralia Correctional Center
(“Centralia”) and Pinckneyville Correctional Center, (“’Pinckneyville”) brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Page 1 of 14

Although Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, he has moved to proceed pro-se in the
action.

Therefore the Court will conduct a preliminary review of the complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides:
Not withstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may
have been paid, the court shall dismiss at any time if the court determines
that the action or appeal
i.
is frivolous or malicious;
ii.
fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or
iii.
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
Initially, however, the Court shall consider whether the distinct claims in this
case against various Defendants may appropriately proceed together in the same case.
See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different
defendants belong in separate lawsuits).
The Complaint
Plaintiff is a practicing Pagan, and set up a Pagan/Wiccan study circle at
Centralia. (Doc. 1, p. 1-2). Despite this, he remained unsatisfied with the degree of
accommodation to his religious practices at the prison, and filed a lawsuit alleging
certain violations of his religious rights. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on June
4, 2014, see Case No. 14-cv-661, although he alleges that he finished writing it on May
12, 2014 and that the defendants were aware that he intended to file it as of that date.
(Doc. 1, p. 14). Plaintiff alleges that other inmates wished to join in his lawsuit, and to
that end, he prepared form grievances for them to sign. (Doc. 1, p. 11-12). Two inmates
Page 2 of 14

submitted identical grievances from a copy provided by Plaintiff with their personal
information and signatures, while another copied out the template Plaintiff had
provided in longhand. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
On May 14, 2014, Leek interviewed Plaintiff regarding the three identical
grievances, allegedly at McCabe’s request. (Doc. 1, p. 15). Leek then wrote Plaintiff a
disciplinary ticket. (Doc. 1, p. 17). The ticket was sanctioned by Greg Schwartz and
served by L. Waters. (Doc. 1, p. 17). All of the grievances drafted by Plaintiff were
ultimately rejected as improper. (Doc. 1, p. 17).
Plaintiff wrote an emergency grievance to Warden Flagg regarding his
impending disciplinary hearing, but the grievance was rejected as a non-emergency.
(Doc. 1, p. 16).
The adjustment committee, consisting of Stephen Johnson, McCance, and
Mathias, held hearing on May 19, 2014. (Doc. 1, p. 20). Plaintiff alleges that there were
multiple due process violations during the hearing.

(Doc. 1, p. 20). Plaintiff was

sentenced to one month segregation, two months of c-grade, two months exercise
restriction and a disciplinary transfer to a higher-security facility. (Doc. 1, p. 22).
Plaintiff’s personal property was then searched on May 19, 2014 due to his
placement in segregation.

(Doc. 1, p. 22).

Drannan and Downs wrote Plaintiff a

disciplinary ticket for 308 contraband/unauthorized property for having excess
property. (Doc. 1, p. 23). Pitts signed off on the ticket. (Doc. 1, p. 23). Plaintiff’s entire

Page 3 of 14

stash of foodstuff was confiscated, along with a large plastic bowl he used to prepare
meals, which he was not able to replace. (Doc. 1, p. 24).
Plaintiff was not given another hearing on the excess property ticket; instead, the
disciplinary report was allegedly falsified to show that he plead guilty on May 22, 2014.
(Doc. 1, p. 24). When Plaintiff was released from segregation, his property box was only
half full. (Doc. 1, p. 24).
During the search, Officers Downs and Drannan also found Plaintiff’s journal.
(Doc. 1, p. 22). The first page of the journal contained a notice: “Privileged Material
Attorney-Client Work Product Record.” (Doc. 1, p. 22). The officers read the journal in
its entirety. (Doc. 1, p. 22). The journal contained descriptions of instances of staff
misconduct, documentation regarding grievances and legal filings, notes on Plaintiff’s
physical and mental condition, thoughts, dreams, spiritual experiences, etc. (Doc. 1, p.
22-23). Prison staff accused Plaintiff of including accounts of sexual activity between
Plaintiff and his cellmate in the journal, in violation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
(Doc. 1, p. 26).
Plaintiff met with Christopher Johnson of Internal Affairs on May 21, 2014. (Doc.
1, p. 25). Christopher Johnson told Plaintiff that the warden was aware of his complaints
about retaliation, and that he had ordered Plaintiff’s placement in segregation. (Doc. 1,
p. 25). Christopher Johnson revealed that Hemker had searched Plaintiff’s legal box
and discovered material that she believed was not legal, as it was creative works and
intellectual property. (Doc. 1, p. 25). Plaintiff maintains that all the property in his box
Page 4 of 14

was legal. Christopher Johnson then produced the disputed box and ordered Plaintiff
to open several sealed envelopes in the box, or face additional disciplinary charges.
(Doc. 1, p. 26). Christopher Johnson then conceded that the sealed envelopes contained
legal materials. (Doc. 1, p. 26).
Christopher Johnson then questioned Plaintiff about the sexual passages in his
journal. (Doc. 1, p. 27). Christopher Johnson then allegedly interviewed Plaintiff’s
cellmate and showed him the journal. (Doc. 1, p. 27). Plaintiff alleges that as a result of
this incident, rumors about Plaintiff’s sexuality spread through Centralia and
Pinckneyville, exposing him to risk from the inmate population.

(Doc. 1, p. 27).

Plaintiff was ultimately issued a disciplinary ticket based on his journal for 204
insolence, 308 contraband, and 310 abuse of privileges. (Doc. 1, p. 29). The ticket was
written by Christopher Johnson, sanctioned by Schwartz and investigated by McCance.
(Doc. 1, p. 29).
That disciplinary ticket regarding the journal was heard on May 27, 2014 by
Stephen Johnson, Burton, and Ritzheimer. (Doc. 1, p. 30). Plaintiff alleges that Burton
was biased against him prior to the hearing, and continually interrupted and harassed
him during the hearing. (Doc. 1, p. 32, 34). No counselor was provided at the hearing.
(Doc. 1, p. 31). Plaintiff was sentenced to one month of segregation, two months of cgrade, and two months exercise restriction. (Doc. 1, p. 34). Flagg signed off on the
adjustment committee report. (Doc. 1, p. 35).

Page 5 of 14

Plaintiff’s journal was never returned. (Doc. 1, p. 35). Plaintiff alleges that the
failure to return the journal, which allegedly contained details of numerous interactions
with IDOC staff that violated Plaintiff’s civil rights, made filing those claims impractical
or impossible. (Doc. 1, p. 35).
Also, on May 27, 2014, Christopher Johnson brought Plaintiff a mail-voucher to
sign in order to send the non-legal materials found in his legal property box out of the
institution. (Doc. 1, p. 35). Plaintiff started to ask why he had to send the material out
as it was not contraband, when Christopher Johnson became visibly irate and yelled
“I’m not going over this with you! I’ll just write you a ticket then!” and slammed the
chuck hole. (Doc. 1, p. 36). Plaintiff received a disciplinary ticket for this incident on
May 29, 2014 for 303 false information, 308 contraband, and 310 abuse of privileges.
(Doc. 1, p. 37).

Christopher Johnson wrote the ticket, Schwartz sanctioned it, and

Ritzheimer served it. (Doc. 1, p. 37). Although Plaintiff eventually signed a voucher so
that the materials could be mailed out to his family, they were ultimately forwarded to
him at Pinckneyville, despite the fact that his account was debited $6.99. (Doc. 1, p. 42).
Plaintiff appeared before an adjustment committee consisting of Stephen
Johnson, Burton, and McCance on June 5, 2014 on charges stemming from his alleged
refusal to mail out the non-legal materials found in his legal property box. (Doc. 1, p.
40). Plaintiff objected to these officers, as he had just named them enemies on June 3,
2014. (Doc. 1p. 40-41). Plaintiff requested his cell mate as a witness, but his cell mate
was released from prison prior to the hearing. (Doc. 1, p. 41). Plaintiff also believes that
Page 6 of 14

Stephen Johnson did not properly consider his rebuttal arguments or evidence. (Doc. 1,
p. 42). Flagg signed off on the adjustment committee report on June 5, 2014. (Doc. 1, p.
42).
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the time he spent in segregation at Centralia, he
was unable to attend Pagan religious services, lost phone privileges, and had
diminished access to law library materials. (Doc. 1, p. 43-45). He further alleges that as
a result of his disciplinary transfer to Pinckneyville, he lost his LED television through
property damage, lost weight because Pinckneyville’s two-meal plan is inadequate,
suffered from fewer exercise opportunities and smaller cells, lost muscle tone, had
fewer opportunities to use the phone, received fewer visits from his mother, and was
deprived of all Pagan worship opportunities and a Pagan diet.

(Doc. 1 p. 45-48).

Plaintiff also alleges that an unknown IA officer at Pinckneyville threatened him to
prevent him from filing more grievances and told him that he had been “warned” about
Plaintiff by one or more persons at Centralia. (Doc. 1, p. 48).
Warden Austin allegedly told Plaintiff that all legal mail is routinely opened by
staff, except for correspondence with the State Appellate Defender. (Doc. 1, p. 27). Lt.
Johnson also told Plaintiff that Centralia staff regularly open mail. (Doc. 1, p. 33).
Plaintiff has received letters from the Office of the State Appellate Defender, and other
protected parties that have been opened and resealed with Scotch tape, or ripped open
in a manner intended to suggest normal wear and tear. (Doc. 1, p. 33). Lt. Johnson
further told Plaintiff that no legal materials are ever privileged. (Doc. 1, p. 33). On May
Page 7 of 14

19, 2014, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Director of the State Police, requesting an
investigation into the harassment he had been experiencing. (Doc. 1, p. 36). Plaintiff
marked the envelope as confidential and sent it out, but when it was returned by the
postal service as “undeliverable,” the staff at Centralia opened the letter and read the
contents. (Doc. 1, p. 37).
On July 21, 2014, Plaintiff met with Chaplain Keim, the chaplain for the entire
IDOC in the visiting room. (Doc. 1, p. 50). Plaintiff discussed his need for a kosher diet,
as he believes the kosher diet option conforms most closely to his religious beliefs.
(Doc. 1, p. 50). Keim ultimately denied Plaintiff’s request, and he never received any
kosher meals. (Doc. 1, p. 50).
Discussion
Plaintiff has divided his complaint into approximately 67 individual counts. The
Court rejects this division as unworkable and not adequately based on the relevant case
law. Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide
the pro se action into 23 counts. 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 following claims survive threshold review.
Count 1 – Leek, McCabe, Schwartz, Flagg, Pitts, Downs, Austin, Christopher
Johnson, and Drannan retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected conduct
by writing Plaintiff four disciplinary tickets
Count 2: Stephen Johnson, Mathis, McCance, and Flagg retaliated against
Plaintiff when they found him guilty of the disciplinary ticket on 5/19/14
Page 8 of 14

Count 3: Stephen Johnson, Mathis, McCance, Flagg, and John Doe improperly
burdened the exercise of Plaintiff’s religion by approving a disciplinary transfer to
Pickneyville Correctional Center in violation of the First Amendment
Count 4: Stephen Johnson, Burton and Ritzheimer retaliated against Plaintiff
when they found him guilty on the third disciplinary ticket on 5/27/14.
Count 5: Stephen Johnson, McCance, Burton, and Flagg retaliated against
Plaintiff when they found him guilty of the fourth disciplinary ticket on 6/5/14
Count 6: Flagg improperly burdened Plaintiff’s exercise of his religion when
he refused to allow him to attend chapel service while in segregation
Count 7: Hemker violated Plaintiff’s right of access to the Courts when he
charged him for case law due to his status as a segregation inmate
Count 8: John Doe retaliated against Plaintiff when he contacted internal
affairs at Pinckneyville to warn them about Plaintiff’s practice of filing complaints
and grievances
Count 9: Stephen Johnson, Mathis, and McCance violated Plaintiff’s due
process rights via the manner in which the 5/19/14 disciplinary hearing was
conducted and by finding Plaintiff guilty
Count 10: Stephen Johnson, Mathis, McCance, Flagg, Burton, and Ritzheimer
conspired to violate Plaintiff’s due process rights when they found Plaintiff guilty of
discipline on 5/19/14, 5/27/14, and 6/5/14
Count 11: Stephen Johnson, Mathis, McCance, and Flagg violated the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by singling Plaintiff out on the basis
of his religion.
Count 12: Pitts, Downs, Drannan, Christopher Johnson, and Austin violated
Plaintiff’s First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights when they read and
confiscated his legal work-product journal
Count 13: Flaag, Pitts, Downs, Burton and Drannan violated Plaintiff’s due
process rights by issuing and finding him guilty on the second disciplinary ticket
without a hearing on 5/27/14
Count 14: Hemker, Christopher Johnson, and Austin violated Plaintiff’s rights
under the First and Fourth Amendments by searching Plaintiff’s sealed legal
materials outside of his presence and directing him to open others.
Page 9 of 14

Count 15: Christopher Johnson violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights
and retaliated against Plaintiff when he discussed the contents of Plaintiff’s journal
with his cellmate, causing Plaintiff to have a reasonable expectation of experiencing
harm
Count 16: Schwartz and Christopher Johnson violated Plaintiff’s equal
protection rights to the extent that the third disciplinary ticket was issued on the
basis of Plaintiff’s perceived sexual orientation.
Count 17: Schwartz and Christopher Johnson retaliated against Plaintiff based
on the content of his journal
Count 18: Stephen Johnson, McCance, and Burton violated Plaintiff’s due
process rights due to the manner in which the hearing on the third disciplinary ticket
was conducted on 6/5/14
Count 19: Christopher Johnson and McCance violated Plaintiff’s First
Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment rights,
and violated Illinois State law when they confiscated Plaintiff’s journal.
Count 20: Christopher Johnson has interfered with Plaintiff’s right of access to
the Courts by confiscating Plaintiff’s journal
Count 21: Christopher Johnson and John Doe violated Plaintiff’s Fifth
Amendment, Fourteenth amendment, and rights under Illinois state law when they
fraudulently charged him $6.99 to mail out his property and then failed to mail out
the property.
Count 22: By opening Plaintiff’s returned mail to the State Police Director,
John Doe violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights
Count 23: Keim violated Plaintiff’s rights to free exercise of his religion by
refusing to approve a kosher diet for Plaintiff
Plaintiff contends that the majority of his claims stem from retaliation against
him for filing grievances, complaints, and for practicing his religion. He has further
alleged that this incidents form a campaign of harassment perpetuated by defendants at
Centralia Correctional Center. However, Plaintiff has not alleged that the unknown
Page 10 of 14

John Doe defendant who allegedly opened his returned mail from the State Police
Director is one of the other defendants, nor has he alleged that the John Doe defendant
was involved in the cycle of retaliation and harassment that make up Plaintiff’s other
claims. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim against Keim took place after the other events
that Plaintiff complains of here, and at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. Plaintiff has
also not implicated Keim in any of his other counts or alleged that the other defendants
knew or communicated with Keim.

Counts 22 and 23 against Keim are factually

distinguishable from his other claims because they involve a different defendant and
different conduct.
The uniqueness of Counts 22 and 23 raises the question of whether all of
Plaintiff’s claims may properly proceed together in the same action. In George v. Smith,
507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), the Seventh Circuit emphasized that unrelated claims
against different defendants belong in separate lawsuits, “not only to prevent the sort of
morass” produced by multi-claim, multi-defendant suits, “but also to ensure that
prisoners pay the required filing fees” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. George,
507 F.3d at 607 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(g)). Claims against different defendants,
which do not arise from a single transaction or occurrence (or a series of related
transactions/occurrences), and do not share a common question of law or fact, may not
be joined in the same lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Further, a prisoner who files
a “buckshot complaint” that includes multiple unrelated claims against different
individuals should not be allowed to avoid “risking multiple strikes for what should
Page 11 of 14

have been several different lawsuits.” Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005, 1011 (7th Cir. 2010).
The Court has broad discretion as to whether to sever claims pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 21, or to dismiss improperly joined Defendants. See Owens v. Hinsely,
635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir.
2000).
Here the claims against the John Doe mailroom clerk are not factually or legally
related to Plaintiff’s other claims. In fact, Plaintiff has alleged that the staff at Centralia
interpreted the mail policy incorrectly, and that he was repeatedly told that the policy
applied to all mail, not just his. This allegation then, is not reasonably related to the
course of harassment that comprises the bulk of Plaintiff’s complaint. Additionally, the
claims against Chaplain Keim are not factually or legally related to the other claims in
Counts 1-21. While Plaintiff has alleged that the IDOC in general was prejudiced
against his religion, he has not provided any facts tending to connect his claims
regarding the Centralia defendants’ campaign of harassment against him to the denial
of a kosher diet at Pickneyville.

The complaint does not suggest that any of the

defendants named in Counts 1-21 were personally involved in the denial of the kosher
diet described in Count 23.
Consistent with the George decision and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the
Court shall sever the claims in Counts 22 and 23 (which are unrelated to Counts 1-21)
into a separate actions. Count 22 and 23 shall be severed into separate cases containing
one count each. The severed cases shall have newly-assigned case numbers. Plaintiff
Page 12 of 14

shall be assessed two more filing fees for the newly severed cases. The severed cases
shall undergo preliminary review pursuant to 1915A after new case numbers and judge
assignments have been made.
Counts 1-21 shall remain in this action. A separate order shall be issued in this
case to review the merits of these claims. Plaintiff shall be provided with a copy of the
merits review order as soon as it is entered.

No service shall be ordered on any

Defendant at this time, pending the § 1915A review.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims in COUNT 22 and COUNT 23,
which are unrelated to the claims in COUNTS 1-21 are SEVERED into two new cases.
One new case shall contain the claims against JOHN DOE mailroom employee. The
other new case shall contain the claims against DEFENDANT KEIM.
The claims in the newly severed cases shall be subject to merits review pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A after the new case number and judge assignment is made. In the
new cases, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the following documents:
1) This Memorandum and Order
2) The Original Complaint (Doc. 1)
3) Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)
Plaintiff will be responsible for an additional $350.0 filing fee in both the newly
severed cases. No service shall be ordered on the defendant in the severed case until
the § 1915A review is completed.

Page 13 of 14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the only claims remaining in this action are
Counts 1-21 against Defendants Julius Flagg, Jimmy Leek, Lt. McCabe, D. Downs, John
A. Dranna, Lt. Pitts, Greg Schawarz, Christopher Johnson, Stephen A. Johnson, Tysha
Mathis, Mark Burton, Brad Ritzheimer, McCance, Tyone Murray, Lucy Hemker, Austin,
and John Doe.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant KEIM is TERMINATED from this
action with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 6, 2016
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
U.S. District Judge

Page 14 of 14