RICHARDSON v. BROWN et al

Filing 11

ENTRY Dismissing Claim and Directing Further Proceedings; Richardson alleges, in part, that his placement in solitary confinement violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because prison disciplinary proceedings do not implicate the double jeopardy clause, this Fifth Amendment claim is dismissed. The remaining claims alleged in the amended complaint shall proceed. The clerk is designated to issue and serve process on the defendants. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/6/2011. (copy to Plaintiff and defendants via U.S. mail)(NKD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

MARCUS RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DICK BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-161-JMS-WGH

Entry Dismissing Claim and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Marcus Richardson, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility, filed this civil action alleging that the defendants Kevin Gilmore, Dick Brown,
and Steven Robertson violated his federally secured rights based on the circumstances
and conditions related to his placement in solitary confinement. His claim is brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I.
The amended complaint is subject to the screening required by 28 U.S.C. '
1915A(b). This statute directs that the court dismiss a complaint or any claim within a
complaint which "(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief." Id.; see Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). A
complaint is sufficient only to the extent that it A>contain[s] either direct or inferential
allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under
some viable legal theory.=@ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007)
(quoting Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F .2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984)).
Richardson’s federal claims are viable only if he has asserted the violation of a
federal right. See Middlesex County Sewage 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).

II.
Richardson alleges, in part, that his placement in solitary confinement violated
the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because prison disciplinary
proceedings do not implicate the double jeopardy clause, this Fifth Amendment claim is
dismissed. Herbst v. Knight, 86 Fed. Appx. 963 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Meeks v.
McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996)).

III.
The remaining claims alleged in the amended complaint shall proceed. The clerk
is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue and serve process on the
defendants in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Process shall consist of
the amended complaint [9], applicable forms and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/06/2011
Date: __________________

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

Distribution:
MARCUS RICHARDSON
944814
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. BOX 500
CARLISLE, IN 47838
Unit Team Manager Kevin Gilmore
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. BOX 500
CARLISLE, IN 47838
Superintendent Dick Brown
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. BOX 500
CARLISLE, IN 47838
Case Manager Steven Robertson
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. BOX 500
CARLISLE, IN 47838