Jordan v. Brookhart

Filing 5

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 7/17/2017. (jaj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

PIERRE JORDAN, #M07905
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR BROOKHART,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17−cv–0625−MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge:
In Jordan v. Lamb, Case No. 17-cv-207-SMY (S.D. Ill. June 14, 2017), Plaintiff Pierre
Jordan, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”), brought suit for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605 (7th Cir. 2007), a First Amendment access to courts claim against Defendant Brookhart was
severed from that initial action to form the basis for this action, Case No. 17-cv-625-MJR. This
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening – The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any
event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal – On review, the court shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
complaint–
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
1

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers
to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 102627 (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 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).
Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it
appropriate to allow this case to proceed past the threshold stage.
The Complaint
The allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 2) relevant to this severed action are as
follows: Plaintiff was obstructed from having meaningful access to the courts when Dr.
Brookhart instructed Law Librarian Caslin to deny his request “to be placed on the legal deadline
because they don’t recognize civil and criminal litigation, only prison conditions.” (Doc. 1, p.
19). As a result, Plaintiff missed a filing deadline in his tort case, a fact the opposing counsel
cited as grounds for dismissal of the case. Id.
Discussion
In its Severance Order (Doc. 1), the Court designated the following count to be severed
into this pro se action. The parties and the Court will continue to use this designation in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court.
Count 6 –

Brookhart violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by denying him
access to courts when he instructed the law librarian to deny Plaintiff’s
requests with respect to his tort claim, causing him to miss his filing
deadline.
2

As discussed in more detail below, Count 6 will be allowed to proceed in this action
Count 6 – Access to Courts
Plaintiff asserts that Brookhart violated his First Amendment rights by denying him
access to courts when he instructed the law librarian to deny Plaintiff’s requests with respect to
his tort claim, causing him to miss his filing deadline. Prisoners have a fundamental right of
meaningful access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977).
Prison officials have an affirmative duty to provide inmates with reasonable
access to courts, which includes providing access to adequate libraries (or
counsel). DeMallory v. Cullen, 855 F.2d 442, 446 (7th Cir. 1988). The right of
access “requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of
meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or
adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.
817, 828 (1977). Nonetheless, reasonable access does not mean unlimited access.
Hossman v. Sprandlin, 812 F.2d 1019, 1021 (7th Cir. 1987).
Martin v. Davies, 917 F.2d 336, 338 (7th Cir. 1990). Violations of the right of access to the
courts may be vindicated in federal court in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
An allegation of actual or threatened detriment is an essential element of a § 1983 action
for denial of access to the courts, Martin 917 F.2d at 340; Howland v. Kilquist, 833 F.2d 639,
642-43 (7th Cir. 1987); Hossman, 812 F.2d at 1021-22. Such an allegation must be more than
conclusory.
The requirement that prisoners making access-to-courts claims allege specific
prejudice should not be understood as an onerous fact-pleading burden; it is
simply a requirement that a prisoner's complaint spell out, in minimal detail, the
connection between the alleged denial of access to legal materials and an inability
to pursue a legitimate challenge to a conviction, sentence, or prison conditions.
Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006). In this case, Plaintiff claims that
Brookhart’s instructions to the law library staff to deny Plaintiff’s request with respect to a tort
claim he was litigating resulted in his missing certain filing deadlines for that case. Plaintiff’s

3

missing the deadline was cited as grounds for dismissal of Plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff has stated a colorable access to courts claim, at least at this stage. Count 6 will
therefore proceed past the threshold stage.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) will be addressed in a separate
order of the Court.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 6 shall PROCEED against BROOKHART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as to COUNT 6, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for
BROOKHART: (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. 2), and this Memorandum and Order to the defendant’s place of
employment as identified by Plaintiff. If the 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 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.

4

Plaintiff shall serve upon the defendant (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 the defendant or counsel. Any paper
received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails
to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.
Brookhart is 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), the only count in this severed action, Count 6 against
Brookhart, is REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for further
pre-trial proceedings. Further, this 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 Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, regardless of
whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(f)(2)(A).
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).

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 17, 2017
___s. MICHAEL J. REAGAN_________
U.S. Chief District Judge

6