PETERSON v. FLOWERS et al

Filing 14

ENTRY AND ORDER Dismissing Action - The action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dismissal of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) is therefore mandatory, Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002), and judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/5/2012. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

LAWRENCE PETERSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MRS. FLOWERS Correctional Officer,
Disciplinary Screening Officer,
BRAIN SMITH Superintendent,
T RAY Correctional Officer/Disciplinary
Screening Officer,
C A PENFOLD Assistant Administrator,
Greivance Supervisor,
GEORGE
CRAIG
Assistant
Administrator, Greivance Supervisor, all
sued in their individual, official
capacities, under color of state law,
Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-00564-JMS-TAB

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
Lawrence Peterson is a state prisoner who sues prison officers and
administrators because, he alleges, four defendants improperly imposed “nocontact” restrictions on his visitations and a fifth defendant improperly ignored or
rejected Peterson’s grievances on this subject. Peterson seeks reinstatement of his
contact visitation status along with money damages. His action is brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “the ubiquitous tort remedy for deprivations of rights secured
by federal law (primarily the Fourteenth Amendment) by persons acting under color
of state law.” Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1201 (7th Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1049 (1984).
Because Peterson is a Aprisoner@ as defined by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(h), the court
has screened his complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b). Pursuant to this
statute, "[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the
allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Jones v. Bock,

127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). A complaint falls within this category if it “alleg[es] facts
that show there is no viable claim.@ Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 699 (7th. Cir.
2008).
“[T]he first step in any [§ 1983] claim is to identify the specific constitutional
right infringed.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). No viable claim is
asserted pursuant to § 1983, however, unless Peterson asserts the violation of a
federal right. See Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. Nat'l Sea Clammers Ass'n,
453 U.S. 1, 19 (1981); Juriss v. McGowan, 957 F.2d 345, 349 n.1 (7th Cir. 1992)
(without a predicate constitutional violation one cannot make out a prima facie case
under § 1983). Peterson’s action falls short in this regard as to both the visitation
claim--because the denial of prison access to a visitor is well within the restrictions
contemplated by a prison sentence, Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson, 490
U.S. 454, 461 (1989); Nkrumah v. Clark, 1992 WL 238336, *4 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing
Mayo v. Lane, 867 F.2d 374, 379 (7th Cir. 1989) (Flaum, J., concurring)—and as to
the grievance-based claim—because the Seventh Circuit has Aspecifically
denounc[ed] a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due-process right to an inmate
grievance procedure.@ Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 772 (7th Cir. 2008).
Federal courts must take cognizance of the valid constitutional claims of
prison inmates. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987)). As explained above, no
such claim has been asserted here.
The action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff has
pled himself out of court “by alleging facts that show there is no viable claim.@ Pugh
v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686, 699 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)(“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) can be
based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts
alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”).
II.
Dismissal of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b) is therefore
mandatory, Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002),
and judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

09/05/2012
Date: __________________

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Lawrence Peterson
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064