ISBY-ISRAEL v. LEMMON et al

Filing 12

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The 26-page amended complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Any claims thought to be brought by plaintiff Aaron Isby-Israel on behalf of ot her inmates are dismissed without prejudice. The claim that the defendants interfered with the grievance process in order to prevent the plaintiff from filing a lawsuit is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any claims based on international law are dismissed. The plaintiff shall have through October 1, 2012, in which to file a statement of remaining claims. The statement of remaining claims should identify the circumstances associated with the alleged vi olation of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and Due Process rights and for each such alleged violation, identify what role any of the defendants played in personally causing the alleged violation. If the plaintiff intended to advance additional claims he should restate such claims in his statement of remaining claims. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/10/2012.(RSF) Modified on 9/11/2012 (RSF).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
AARON ISBY-ISRAEL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRUCE LEMMON, Commissioner of
IDOC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-116-JMS-MJD

Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I.
The 26-page amended complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006).
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).
To satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” which is sufficient to provide the
defendant with “fair notice” of the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). To survive a motion to dismiss, the
complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face. . . . A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotations omitted). Pro se complaints such as that
filed by Aaron Isby-Israel, are construed liberally and held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94;
Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).

II.
Four claims are apparent in the amended complaint, each of which is
discussed below. As a preliminary matter, any claims thought to be brought by
plaintiff Aaron Isby-Israel on behalf of other inmates are dismissed
without prejudice. The plaintiff is not an attorney and does not have standing to
assert the rights of other plaintiffs, and no right to act on their behalf. O=Bam v.
Hawk, 1994 WL 692969 (N.D. Ind 1994) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499
(1975); Newsom v. Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 381 (6th Cir. 1989); Cotner v. Hopkins, 795
F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986); Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir.
1988); Gometz v. Henman, 807 F.2d 113, 115 (7th Cir. 1986); Adams v. James, 784
F.2d 1077 (11th Cir. 1986); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985)).
A. Grievance Process
The claim that the defendants interfered with the grievance process in order
to prevent the plaintiff from filing a lawsuit is dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. It is true that the Prison Litigation Reform Act
requires that a prisoner exhaust his available administrative remedies before
bringing a suit concerning prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a); Porter v. Nussle,
534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002). It has been recognized, however, that Aa remedy
becomes >unavailable= if prison employees do not respond to a properly filed
grievance or otherwise use affirmative misconduct to prevent a prisoner from
exhausting.@ See Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). Given these
circumstances, the plaintiff has failed to Amake specific allegations as to the
prejudice suffered because of the defendants= alleged conduct@ and any right to
access-to-courts claim is dismissed. Ortloff v. United States, 335 F.3d 652, 656 (7th
Cir. 2003). Further, 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). As explained in Antonelli
v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430-31 (7th Cir. 1996), Aany right to a grievance
procedure is a procedural right, not a substantive one. Accordingly, a state's inmate
grievance procedures do not give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due
Process Clause.@ Id. at 1430-31(internal citations omitted). Because the plaintiff had
no expectation of a particular outcome of his grievances, there is no viable claim
which can be vindicated through 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 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).
B. International Law
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants’ actions violate international law
such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 7
and 79 to the United Nations Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. But,

the ICCPR is not self-executing and does not give rise to a private cause of action.
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734-35 (2004); Clancy v. Office of Foreign
Assets Control of U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 2007 WL 1051767, 17 (E.D. Wis. 2007).
Similarly, this court is not aware of any authority which supports the position that
the United Nations Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners creates a private
cause of action. Accordingly, any claims based on international law are dismissed.
C. Eighth Amendment
The plaintiff alleges that the conditions of confinement in administrative
segregation violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment. This claim shall proceed as submitted consistent with Part III of this
Entry.
D. Due Process
The plaintiff alleges that his placement in administrative segregation for
more than five years without a hearing or review process violates his right to due
process. This claim shall proceed as submitted consistent with Part III of this
Entry.
III.
The plaintiff shall have through October 1, 2012, in which to file a
statement of remaining claims. Given the rulings in Part II of this Entry, the
statement of remaining claims should identify the circumstances associated with
the alleged violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and Due Process rights and
for each such alleged violation, identify what role any of the defendants played in
personally causing the alleged violation.
As discussed in Part II of this Entry, four claims for relief were identified by
the court. If the plaintiff intended to advance additional claims he should restate
such claims in his statement of remaining claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

09/10/2012
Date: __________________

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

Distribution:
Aaron Isby-Israel
892219
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838