Johnson v. Lashbrook et al

Filing 10

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 7/8/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TRAVIS JOHNSON, # B-36941,

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

Plaintiff,
vs.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
JOHN BALDWIN,
TY BATES,
SUZANN BAILEY,
ROBERT SAMOLINSKI,
and SWANSON,
Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00637-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff

Travis

Johnson,

an

inmate

who

is

currently

incarcerated

at

Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”), brings this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights at Pinckneyville (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff challenges the decision of prison officials to serve inmates a soy-based diet (Doc. 1,
p. 5). Plaintiff has consumed this diet since March 1, 2016, and he claims that it has caused him
to suffer severe headaches, stomach pain, weight gain, diarrhea, loss of circulation, prolonged
bouts of constipation, and a torn anus (id. at 6).
Plaintiff sent four or five requests for medical care to “medical” and received no response
(id.). When he filed written grievances to complain about the diet, a prison counselor (Counselor
Samolinski) destroyed them. The Illinois Department of Corrections’ (IDOC) Director (Director
Baldwin), IDOC Deputy Director (Deputy Director Bates), and Food Administrator
(Administrator Bailey) allegedly ignored his grievances. The prison warden (Warden Lashbrook)

Page 1 of 8

responded to Plaintiff’s complaints about the prison diet by instructing him to purchase his food
from commissary. Finally, the commissary owner (Swanson) told Plaintiff that he could either
buy his food from commissary or eat the prison food and “get sick or worse” (id. at 5). In an
effort to avoid the overconsumption of soy, Plaintiff has allegedly spent “thousands” at the
prison’s commissary (id.).
Plaintiff now sues Director Baldwin, Deputy Director Bates, Warden Lashbrook,
Administrator Bailey, Counselor Samolinski, and Swanson. He claims that these defendants
conspired to violate his rights by instituting a soy diet at the prison and ignoring his grievances
regarding the same, in order to generate revenue at the prison’s commissary. He seeks monetary
damages and a preliminary injunction (id. at 7).
Merits Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
This matter is before the Court for preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner
complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must 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 survives preliminary review under this
standard.
Based on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se complaint into
the following enumerated 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 designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion regarding their merit.

Page 2 of 8

Count 1:

Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for endangering
Plaintiff’s health by serving him a soy diet.

Count 2:

Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for ignoring
Plaintiff’s grievances regarding the soy diet.

Count 3:

Conspiracy claim against Defendants for depriving Plaintiff of
a nutritionally adequate diet in an effort to drive business to
the prison’s commissary.

Count 1 is subject to further review against Director Baldwin, Deputy Director Bates,
Warden Lashbrook, and Food Administrator Bailey, but shall be dismissed with prejudice
against Counselor Samolinski and Swanson. Counts 2 and 3 shall be dismissed with prejudice
against all of the defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Discussion
Count 1
The Constitution requires prison officials to provide inmates with “nutritionally adequate
food that is prepared and served under conditions which do not present an immediate danger to
the health and well-being of the inmates who consume it.” French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250,
1255 (7th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff alleges that the prison had a policy of serving soy-based foods,
despite the known negative health consequences associated with the diet. He suffered adverse
health consequences soon after he began to consume the diet on March 1, 2016. He names all six
defendants in connection with the decision to offer a soy diet.
The allegations are sufficient to state a claim concerning the service of nutritionally
inadequate or harmful foods against IDOC Director Baldwin, Deputy Director Bates,
Warden Lashbrook, and Food Administrator Bailey. These defendants are senior level staff who
may have decision-making authority regarding the prison diet.

Page 3 of 8

However, the claim shall be dismissed against Counselor Samolinski and Swanson. In the
complaint, Plaintiff does not allege that the prison diet resulted from a policy directive of either
defendant, or that these defendants were involved in food service decisions. Accordingly,
Count 1 shall be dismissed with prejudice against Counselor Samolinski and Swanson.
Count 2
The complaint supports no independent Fourteenth Amendment claim against the
defendants. Plaintiff complains that prison officials ignored the grievances he filed to complain
about the soy diet and the adverse health consequences that resulted. Prison grievance procedures
are not constitutionally mandated and give rise to no independent claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process Clause. The alleged mishandling of grievances “by persons who
otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.” Owens v.
Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011); Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 772 n. 3
(7th Cir. 2008); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007); Antonelli v. Sheahan,
81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Count 2 shall be dismissed with prejudice
against all of the defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Count 3
The complaint also supports no conspiracy claim against the defendants. In fact, Plaintiff
mentions a “conspiracy” in passing. This conclusory allegation is not supported by factual
allegations. Claims of conspiracy require a factual foundation to survive preliminary review.
Woodruff v. Mason, 542 F.3d 545, 551 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Massey v. Johnson, 457 F.3d
711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006)). “To establish the existence of a conspiracy, a plaintiff must
demonstrate that the conspirators have an agreement to inflict injury or harm upon him.” Sow v.
Fortville Police Dept., 636 F.3d 293, 304-05 (7th Cir. 2011). “The agreement may be inferred

Page 4 of 8

from circumstantial evidence, but only if there is sufficient evidence that would permit a
reasonable jury to conclude that a meeting of the minds had occurred and that the parties had an
understanding to achieve the conspiracy’s objectives.” Id. at 305 (quoting Hernandez v. Joliet
Police Dept., 197 F.3d 256, 263 (7th Cir. 1999)). The fact that the defendants may have played a
role in implementing or carrying out a decision to serve soy at the prison does not establish the
existence of a conspiracy. No allegations suggest that a decision to this effect was made to harm
Plaintiff, or any other prisoner, or to force him to purchase more food from commissary.
Count 3 shall therefore be dismissed with prejudice against all of the defendants for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff filed a motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 3), which shall be REFERRED
to United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for a decision.
Plaintiff filed a motion for service of process at government expense (Doc. 4), which is
hereby GRANTED in part, with respect to JOHN BALDWIN, TY BATES, JACQUELINE
LASHBROOK, and SUZANN BAILEY, and DENIED in part, with respect to
ROBERT SAMOLINSKI and SWANSON.
Disposition
The Clerk is DIRECTED to ADD a motion for preliminary injunction as a separate
docket entry in CM/ECF. This motion is hereby REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge
Stephen C. Williams for handling.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 1 is DISMISSED with prejudice against
Defendants ROBERT SAMOLINSKI and SWANSON for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, and COUNTS 2 and 3 are DISMISSED with prejudice against all of the

Page 5 of 8

defendants for the same reason.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNT 1 is subject to further review against
Defendants JOHN BALDWIN, TY BATES, JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, and SUZANN
BAILEY. With regard to COUNT 1, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for JOHN BALDWIN,
TY BATES, JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, and SUZANN BAILEY: (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 (Doc. 1), 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.
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

Page 6 of 8

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 Stephen C. Williams for further pre-trial proceedings, including a decision on the
pending motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 3) and resolution of the motion for preliminary
injunction. 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 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 the
fact that his application to proceed in forma pauperis was 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

Page 7 of 8

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: July 8, 2016
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 8 of 8