Williams v. Richmond
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS Williams until 7/6/2016, to file an amended complaint incorporating the detailed information specified in the Opinion and Order; and CAUTIONS Williams that if he does not respond by 7/6/2016, this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 11/2/2015. cc: Williams along with packet (tc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ERNEST LAMONT WILLIAMS, III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAPTAIN STEVE RICHMOND,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 2:15-CV-393
OPINION AND ORDER
Ernest Lamont Williams, III, a pro se prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
complaining that Captain Steve Richmond prevented him from making copies at the St.
Joseph County Jail: “Richmond, refuse[d] to let me have the copies I needed to make
for my claim. . . . I need three copies made, and he refused me the right to do so. (DE 1
at 3.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must screen Williams’ complaint and dismiss the
action if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
The standard for dismissal under Section 1915A is the same as under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir.
2006). To survive such a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must state a claim
that is plausible on its face or, in other words “plead[] factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602–3 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted). To state claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Williams
must allege: “(1) that the defendant[] deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and
(2) that the defendant[] acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667,
670 (7th Cir. 2006). Because Williams is proceeding pro se, I must construe his complaint
liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”).
Williams appears to allege that Richmond refused to allow Williams to have
materials copied in triplicate and that this denial prejudiced Williams’ ability to pursue
a meritorious case, but the complaint does not connect the dots. For Williams to have a
valid constitutional claim here, he must “spell out, in minimal detail the connection
between the denial of access to legal materials and an inability to pursue a legitimate
challenge to a conviction, sentence, or prison conditions.” (Id.) See Marshall v. Knight,
445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006). Williams’ complaint does not say what materials he
needed to copy or identify the claim he intended to pursue. It also does not describe
any prejudice resulting from Richmond’s refusal.
Though Williams has not yet not alleged a plausible claim for denial of access to
the courts, he may be able to do so if given the chance, so I will allow him to amend the
complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022–23, 1025 (7th Cir.
2013). At a minimum, the amended complaint should provide a detailed description of
(a) the documents William needed copied in triplicate, (b) the claim for which Williams
needed the documents, and © the prejudice Williams suffered in pursuit of the claim as
2
a result of Richmond’s refusal.
For the reasons set forth above, I:
(1) DIRECT the clerk to place this cause number on a blank prisoner complaint
42 U.S.C. § 1983 packet and send it to Williams;
(2) GRANT Williams until and including July 6, 2016, to file an amended
complaint incorporating the detailed information I specified above; and
(3) CAUTION Williams that if he does not respond by July 6, 2016, this case will
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 2, 2015.
s/ Philip P. Simon
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?