Cox v. True et al

Filing 76

CLERK'S JUDGMENT. Approved by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 1/3/2019. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FRANCIS SCHAEFFER COX,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-338-JPG-DGW

WILLIAM TRUE, KATHERINE SIEREVELD,
ANGELA DUNBAR, KATHY HILL, GARY
BURGESS, RICHARD BLYTHE, RAHSAAN
BASKERVILLE, CHAD KRAWCYZK, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS and HUGH HURWITZ,
Defendants.
JUDGMENT
This matter having come before the Court, the issues having been heard, and the Court
having rendered a decision,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following claims are dismissed
with prejudice:
•

Count 1, to the extent it asserts an “as applied” challenge under the Fifth Amendment
Due Process Clause to BOP PS 5265.14 and BOP PS 5270.09 against defendants
Siereveld, Dunbar, Hill, Burgess, Blythe, Baskerville, and Krawcyzk;

•

Count 2, a First Amendment claim against defendants Blythe, True, and Siereveld for
disciplining plaintiff and withholding certain items of his mail between December 22,
2016, and January 9, 2017, for allegedly conducting a business;

•

Count 3, a First Amendment claim against defendant Hill for instructing plaintiff not to
communicate with Joshua Ligairi and causing plaintiff not to communicate further with
Ligairi;

•

Count 4, a First Amendment claim against defendant Hill for approving discipline against
plaintiff for attempting to communicate with the media, as recounted in disciplinary
report #2882521, #2914457, and #2931834; and

•

Count 6, a claim against defendants Dunbar, True, and Siereveld for negligence for
failing to prevent the conspiracy alleged in Count 5 in violation of Plaintiff’s First and
Fifth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1986;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following claims are dismissed
without prejudice:
•

Count 1, to the extent it asserts a facial challenge under the Fifth Amendment Due
Process Clause to BOP PS 5265.14 and BOP PS 5270.09 against defendants Hurwitz and
True;

•

Count 5, a claim against defendants True, Siereveld, Dunbar, Hill, Burgess, Blythe,
Baskerville, and Krawcyzk for conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s First and Fifth
Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) by retaliating against plaintiff for
receiving a letter from Ligairi;

•

Count 7, a claim against defendant Dunbar for denying plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment due
process rights when she transferred him from USP Marion’s general population to the
Communications Management Unit on August 30, 2016;

•

Count 8, a claim against defendant Dunbar for retaliation for plaintiff’s exercise of First
Amendment rights when she transferred him from USP Marion’s general population to
the Communications Management Unit on August 30, 2016;

•

Count 9, a claim against defendant Burgess for retaliation by substantiating incident
reports #2882521 and #2914557 without sufficient evidence in violation of plaintiff’s
First Amendment rights;

•

Count 10, a claim against defendant Baskerville for retaliation by substantiating incident
report #2931834 without sufficient evidence in violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment
rights;

•

Count 11, a claim against defendant Krawcyzk for retaliation by substantiating incident
report #2882521 without sufficient evidence in violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment
rights;

•

Count 12, a claim against defendant Burgess for depriving plaintiff of his Fifth
Amendment due process rights by substantiating incident reports #2882521, #2914457,
and #2931834 without sufficient evidence;

•

Count 13, a claim against defendant Krawcyzk for violation of plaintiff’s Fifth
Amendment due process rights by referring the incident report #2882521 to a
Disciplinary Hearing Officer despite knowing that the report was unsupported by
evidence;

•

Count 14, a claim against defendant Baskerville for violating plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment
due process rights by substantiating incident report #2931834 without sufficient
evidence; and
2

•

Count 15, a claim against defendant Blythe for violating plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment due
process rights by issuing incident reports #2882521, #2914557, and #2967316, and
against defendants Blythe and Siereveld for violating plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment due
process rights by issuing incident report #2931834, despite knowing the reports were
false.

DATED: January 3, 2019
MARGARET M. ROBERTIE, Clerk of Court
s/Tina Gray, Deputy Clerk

Approved:

s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3