Wagoner v. Elkhart County Correctional Center

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 12/4/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ROBERT J. WAGONER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELKHART COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
CENTER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-892 PPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Robert J. Wagoner, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Elkhart
County Correctional Center. “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
quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I
must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action 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. “In order to state a claim under § 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).
Wagoner complains that the correctional facility is gouging prices for commissary
goods, including food, hygiene items, reading glasses, and blankets. The Eighth

Amendment prohibits conditions of confinement that deny inmates “the minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities.” Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir. 2008). However,
“the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons,” and conditions that may seem
“restrictive” or “even harsh” are “part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their
offenses against society.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347-49 (1981). Without more, not
having access to commissary does not rise to the level of the types of harsh conditions that
can be considered denying “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” See Brown
v. Gulash, 2009 WL 2144592, at *5 (S.D. Ill. July 16, 2009) (holding that there is no
constitutional right to purchase commissary goods); Robinson v. Ill. State Corr. Ctr.
(Stateville) Warden, 890 F. Supp. 715, 718 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (holding that being denied
commissary privilges does not implicate the “minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities”). It follows that not having access to commissary goods at certain prices also
does not deprive an individual of life’s necessities. See Owens v. Dir. IDOC, 2016 WL
2957938, at *2 (S.D. Ill. May 23, 2016) (holding that high prices for commissary goods does
not violate the Constitution); Henry v. Blagojevich, 2010 WL 2680531, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 30,
2010) (same). Wagoner does not state – nor is it plausible to infer from his complaint – that
he has been denied any of life’s necessities. Accordingly, Wagoner fails to state a plausible
Eighth Amendment claim.
Though it is usually necessary “to give pro se litigants one opportunity to amend
after dismissing a complaint ... that’s unnecessary where, as here, it is certain from the face
of the complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise unwarranted.”

2

Carpenter v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 633 F. App’x 346, 348 (7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016) (quotation
marks omitted); see also 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.”).
ACCORDINGLY:
For these reasons, the court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
because it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
ENTERED: December 4, 2017
_/s/ Philip P. Simon______
Judge
United States District Court

3