Miles v. Mitchell et al

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/26/2024. (anp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BILLY MILES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 23-cv-3562-NJR

STATE OF ILLINOIS, JACKSONVILLE
CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, PERRY COUNTY, DAVID W.
MITCHELL, A. HAGGARD, J.
SADDLER, J. MCCLENNING, TRENT,
FILKINS, ADEWALE KUFORIJI, and
ROB JEFFREYS,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Billy Miles, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is
currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”). 1 Miles’s original Complaint (Doc. 1) alleging

This case is one of 13 that the Court received from Miles. For ease of comprehension as the Court
manages these cases, and any potential future cases, the cases have been assigned basic numeral
identifiers as follows: Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3562-NJR (“Miles 1”), Miles v. Mitchell,
et al., Case No. 23-cv-3563-NJR (“Miles 2”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3564-NJR (“Miles
3”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-2365-NJR (“Miles 4”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No.
23-cv-2366-NJR (“Miles 5”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3567-NJR (“Miles 6”), Miles v.
Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3568-NJR (“Miles 7”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3569NJR (“Miles 8”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3570-NJR (“Miles 9”), Miles v. Mitchell, et
al., Case No. 23-cv-3571-NJR (“Miles 10”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3572-NJR (“Miles

1

1

missing commissary items from his personal property was dismissed without prejudice
(Doc. 9). Miles was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. On January 11, 2024,
Miles filed his Amended Complaint (Doc. 15). He again alleges that items were
confiscated from his personal property.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to
screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Any portion of a 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 must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Amended Complaint
In the Amended Complaint, Miles makes the following allegations: On October
25, 2021, while at Jacksonville Correctional Center (“Jacksonville”), Miles had an
altercation and was sent to segregation (Doc. 15, p. 8). As a result, Miles packed up his
property (Id.). On October 27, 2021, property officer C/O McClenning discovered several
items in Miles’s packed property that were considered contraband under IDOC
regulations (Id. at pp. 8, 18-19). He also located several items that Miles had in excess of
the amount allowed by IDOC regulations. Some of the items confiscated were 500
pictures containing nudity, alcohol, drug use, and money (Id.). Miles also lists numerous

11”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3579-NJR (“Miles 12”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No.
23-cv-3580-NJR (“Miles 13”).

2

other items in his personal property, although it is not clear how many of these items
were confiscated. He provides a list of items including: a laundry bag, TV mat, batteries,
clear bags, skull caps, gloves, photo albums, drinking pitcher and cups, lotions, extension
cords, headphones, toothpaste, comb, pens, razors, ear buds, a beard trimmer,
toothbrushes, mirrors, blankets, mattress pads, bedsheets, sweeteners, chips, peanut
butter, tea bags, crackers, soda, ramen noodles, binders, paper, shirts, boxes, beach
towels, wash towels, shampoo, gym shorts, socks, and mouthwash (Id. at pp. 8-9, 18-19).
Some of his property was placed on a 30-day confiscation list. Miles alleges that
McClenning failed to provide him with any relief (Id. at p. 8).
On November 1, 2021, Miles transferred from Jacksonville to Pinckneyville and
was placed in segregation (Id. at p. 9). Miles inquired about the status of his property with
Pinckneyville’s property officers C/O Trent and C/O Filkins (Id.). On November 9, 2021,
Miles transferred to general population (Id. at p. 10). He wrote a grievance about his
property that was denied by counselor A. Haggard, grievance officer J. Saddler, David
W. Mitchell, Adewale Kuforiji, and Rob Jeffreys (Id. at pp. 10-11). The grievance responses
indicate that the items were properly seized, noting that different facilities have different
contraband lists based on security levels (Id. at pp. 16, 18). The grievance officer also noted
that some of the confiscated items were also considered non-compliant at Pinckneyville
(Id. at p. 21).
On November 10, 2021, Trent and/or Filkins presented Miles with a 30-day
confiscation form, informing Miles that certain items in his property would be destroyed
unless he paid to have the items shipped home (Id. at p. 10). Miles paid $200.00 to ship
3

the property to his family (Id.). Miles alleges that none of the defendants tried to provide
him with any relief for his claims. He also alleges that the prisons are final policymakers
and also make policies and customs (Id. at p. 11). Finally, Miles alleges that he is a disabled
inmate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act
(“RA”), suffers from a serious mental illness, and is protected by the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”).
Discussion
Simply put, Miles again fails to state a claim. There are a number of issues with
the Amended Complaint. First and foremost, Miles fails to identify a constitutional
violation. He alleges that numerous items were confiscated from his personal property
but acknowledges that the items were labeled contraband. He was also allowed to send
the items home to family. There are simply no allegations to suggest that the confiscation
was improper. Further, Miles fails to allege how the confiscation of his property violated
his constitutional rights. There are no allegations suggesting that the items were
confiscated in retaliation for some constitutionally protected conduct, allegations that
might implicate the First Amendment. See Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir.
2012).
Miles is also unable to state a loss of property claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment. To state such a claim, Miles must establish a deprivation of liberty or
property without due process of law. Moreover, if the state provides an adequate remedy,
Miles has no civil rights claim. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530–36 (1984) (availability
4

of damages remedy in state claims court is an adequate, post-deprivation remedy). Miles
states that he was allowed to send his property home, so it does not appear that the items
were destroyed. To the extent that Miles alleges that any property was destroyed, his
avenue of relief would be through state court. 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). Miles simply fails to allege a viable constitutional violation based on the
confiscation of his property.
Miles also cites numerous statutes, stating that he qualifies as a disabled individual
under the ADA and RA. He also cites to RFRA and RLUIPA. But Miles fails to offer any
allegations to suggest a violation of any of these statutes. None of the confiscated items
suggest a violation of these statutes nor do any of the identified defendants’ actions
violate these statutes. Miles simply cites to the statutes without any allegations
suggesting their applicability. Thus, Miles fails to state any claim as to the confiscation of
his property.
And there are additional issues with Miles’s Amended Complaint. He identifies
the State of Illinois and both Jacksonville and Pinckneyville as defendants, but neither
can be liable because neither are a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983. Will v.
Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-71 (1989) (“neither a State nor its officials acting
in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under [Section] 1983”); Billman v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr.,
56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 1995) (state “Department of Corrections is immune from suit by
virtue of Eleventh Amendment”). He also identifies grievance officials, who he alleges
5

failed to remedy his complaints, but these officials cannot be liable for simply responding
to his grievances. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that “the
alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause
or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”).
For all of these reasons, Miles again fails to state a claim. This is Miles’s second
attempt to state a viable claim in regard to his confiscated property, and he has been
unable to do so. The Court finds that a further amendment would be futile. His Amended
Complaint is, thus, DISMISSED with prejudice. Miles’s motion for counsel (Doc. 17) is
DENIED as moot.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Miles’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. The dismissal counts as one of Miles’s three allotted
“strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Miles is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action
was incurred at the time the action was filed. Therefore, the filing fee remains due and
payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
If Miles wishes to appeal this Order, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court
within 30 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). If Miles does choose to
appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 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, 133
F.3d at 467. He must list each of the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal,
6

and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must set forth the issues he plans to
present on appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C). Moreover, if the appeal is found to be
nonmeritorious, Miles may also incur another “strike.” A proper and timely motion filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline.
FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than 28 days after the
entry of judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 26, 2024
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

7