Weakley v. Roark et al

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Timothy S. Weakley, Sr. until 4/25/2024, to file an amended complaint and CAUTIONS Timothy S. Weakley, Sr. if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 3/26/2024. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mrm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TIMOTHY S. WEAKLEY, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO. 3:23-CV-992-JD-JEM

S. ROARK, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Timothy S. Weakley, Sr., a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint. ECF 1.
“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, under 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.
Weakley alleges that, in 2019, he lost his job with ICI Industries. He does not
indicate why he lost his job, but he contends that he was a good worker and believes he
should have been rehired. He has sued S. Roark (who allegedly has a personal vendetta
against him), ICI Industries, and Superintendent W. Hyatte.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides state officials shall not “deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ..” U.S. Const. amend.

XIV, § 1. But to state a claim for a denial of due process, Weakley must first establish
that he was denied a protected liberty or property interest. Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d
934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). A job loss does not implicate a liberty or property interest
protected by the due process clause. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 613 (7th Cir.
2000), abrogated in part on other grounds by Savory v. Cannon, 947 F.3d 409 (7th Cir. 2020).
Therefore, neither the loss of a job nor the decision not to rehire someone who lost their
job can form the basis of a due process claim.
This complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. If Weakley
believes he can state a claim based on (and consistent with) the events described in this
complaint, he may file an amended complaint because “[t]he usual standard in civil
cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least
where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738
(7th Cir. 2018). To file an amended complaint, he needs to write this cause number on a
Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20) Prisoner Complaint form which is available from his law
library. He needs to write the word “Amended” on the first page above the title
“Prisoner Complaint” and send it to the court after he properly completes the form.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Timothy S. Weakley, Sr. until April 25, 2024, to file an amended
complaint; and
(2) CAUTIONS Timothy S. Weakley, Sr. if he does not respond by the deadline,
this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the
current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
2

SO ORDERED on March 26, 2024
/s/JON E. DEGUILIO
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3