UNDERHILL v. BUTTS et al

Filing 11

ENTRY Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment. The Court has considered the plaintiff's response to the order to show cause, but finds that the complaint was properly dismissed. The action is now dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This dismissal counts as a "strike" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/27/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (BGT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RICKY UNDERHILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEITH BUTTS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-01119-JMS-MJD

Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
The plaintiff has responded to the Court’s order to show cause why this action should not
be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The plaintiff first contends that he was denied recreation three times, not just one, in
retaliation for filing grievances. Otherwise, he repeats his claim that the named defendants
harassed and retaliated against him because he filed many grievances. Although he disagrees with
the Court’s dismissal of his retaliation claim, he has not shown that the dismissal was incorrect.
The conduct of the defendants has not deterred him from First Amendment activity, which is an
element of any retaliation claim. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir.2009). This defeats
his claim of retaliation.
With respect to the claim that the plaintiff was unlawfully videotaped, an inmate does not
have a constitutional right not to be videotaped during a telephonic conference with judicial
officers. The Court considered whether the plaintiff’s allegations could state a claim of denial of
access to the courts, but the plaintiff was not prevented from pursuing his federal case. Indeed, the
defendants stopped videotaping conferences as of June 12, 2014, and an in-person conference was
conducted at the courthouse on June 20, 2014. The Court understands that the plaintiff feels

wronged, but these circumstances did not violate the plaintiff’s First Amendment right to access
the courts.
The Court has considered the plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause, but finds that
the complaint was properly dismissed. The action is now dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This dismissal counts as a “strike”
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

08/27/2015
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Ricky Underhill, #953146
Indiana State Prison
Inmate Mail/Parcels
One Park Row
Michigan City, IN 46360