Peavy v. Peoples et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 9 MOTION For Appointment Of Counsel by Plaintiff Willie R Peavy. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 8/29/16. (cc: Willie R Peavy). (cer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA WILLIE R. PEAVY, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE PEOPLES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO.: 3:16-CV-165 TLS OPINION AND ORDER Willie R. Peavy, a pro se prisoner, filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 8] alleging that the Defendants violated a contract with Aramark, a food service provider, by allowing an Aramark employee to sign a Conduct Report charging him with violating a prison rule. “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 . . . .” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this Court must review the Amended Complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a Defendant who is immune from such relief. “In order to state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, the Amended Complaint does not state a claim because the violation of a contract does not constitute the violation of a Constitutional right. Beyond that, the Constitution does not prohibit private contract employees from operating an entire prison, which inherently requires that they discipline inmates for breaking the rules. See Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 1999) (describing as “thoroughly frivolous” the argument that it is unconstitutional to confine a convicted prisoner in a prison owned by a private firm). Therefore, this Amend Complaint does not state a claim and it must be dismissed. It is usually necessary “to give pro se litigants one opportunity to amend after dismissing a complaint. . . . [but] that’s unnecessary where, as here, it is certain from the face of the complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted.” Carpenter v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’n, No. 633 F. App’x. 346, 348 (7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016) (unpublished order) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1024 n.3 (7th Cir. 2013); Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the amendment would be futile.”). For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court also notes that, on July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 9]. Even overlooking that the Plaintiff has failed to show any effort to obtain counsel on his own, see Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 710–11 (7th Cir. 2014), the Plaintiff has ably and adequately stated the basis of his claim, Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 784 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). Accordingly, the Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 9] is DENIED. SO ORDERED on August 29, 2016. s/ Theresa L. Springmann THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORT WAYNE DIVISION 2

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?