Edwards v. Griffin et al

Filing 57

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Scottie R. Edwards leave to proceed against Joyce Rhodes and William Martin in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for racially discriminating when they fired him from his prison law library job and falsified apprenticeship records so he would be denied his certification and time cut inviolation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, DISMISSES all other claims, DISMISSES John Nally and ORDERS, pursuant to 4 2 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Joyce Rhodes and WilliamMartin to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D.Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 1/31/19. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
SCOTTIE R. EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO.: 3:18-CV-155-JD-MGG

JOYCE RHODES, WILLIAM MARTIN,
and JOHN NALLY,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Scottie R. Edwards, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint
(ECF 50) alleging he was racially discriminated against at the Miami Correctional
Facility. “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) (quotation
marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court
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.
Edwards alleges he completed the United States Department of Labor Legal
Secretary apprenticeship program. He alleges completion of the program automatically
results in a six month reduction in his release date. He alleges that because of his race,
Joyce Rhodes and William Martin fired him from his prison law library job and falsified

his apprenticeship records so he would be denied his certification and time cut. The
equal protection clause precludes prison officials from denying a prisoner job
opportunities based on race. Black v. Lane, 824 F.2d 561, 562 (7th Cir. 1987) (A black
inmate stated a cause of action by alleging racial discrimination in the assignment of
prison jobs). Therefore Edwards may proceed against Joyce Rhodes and William Martin
for racially discriminating against him in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Edwards also names John Nally as a defendant. He does not allege Nally racially
discriminated against him. Rather, he alleges Nally did not adequately review the
Department of Labor apprenticeship records and therefore has not properly adjusted
his release date. Detaining an inmate beyond his release date can, under certain
circumstances, constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Burke v. Johnston, 452
F.3d 665, 667 (7th Cir. 2006); Campbell v. Peters, 256 F.3d 695, 700 (7th Cir. 2001).
However, Edwards has not yet been held past his earliest possible release date even if
he were given the time cut credit he seeks. Moreover, to state such a claim, the plaintiff
must show that “a prison official knew of the prisoner’s problem and thus of the risk
that unwarranted punishment was being inflicted.” Burke, 452 F.3d at 669; see also
Campbell, 256 F.3d at 700 (inmate stated claim against prison officials who failed to
release him at the end of his sentence). Here, Edwards has not alleged Nally knows he
is entitled to the credit, but refuses to award it to him. Rather, he merely alleges Nally
does not believe he is entitled to a time cut because he has not adequately reviewed his
records. To state a claim for being held past a release date, the inmate’s extended

2

incarceration must be “the product of deliberate indifference before a constitutional
violation, as opposed to an error of state law, is implicated.” Campbell, 256 F.3d at 700.
“Negligence on the part of an official does not violate the Constitution, and it is not
enough that he or she should have known of a risk. Instead, deliberate indifference
requires evidence that an official actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and
consciously disregarded it nonetheless.” Pierson v. Hartley, 391 F.3d 898, 902 (7th Cir.
2004) (citations omitted). It is not enough to show that a defendant merely failed to act
reasonably. Gibbs v. Franklin, 49 F.3d 1206, 1208 (7th Cir. 1995). Even incompetence does
not state a claim of deliberate indifference. Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2000).
Here, Edwards has not alleged facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that Nally
was deliberately indifferent. Therefore Nally will be dismissed.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Scottie R. Edwards leave to proceed against Joyce Rhodes and
William Martin in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages
for racially discriminating when they fired him from his prison law library job and
falsified apprenticeship records so he would be denied his certification and time cut in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims;
(3) DISMISSES John Nally; and
(4) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Joyce Rhodes and William
Martin to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D.

3

Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to
proceed in this screening order.
SO ORDERED on January 31, 2019
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4