Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
LUCIEN v. PETERS
January 12, 1994
RUDOLPH L. LUCIEN, Plaintiff,
HOWARD A. PETERS III, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON I. SHADUR
As our Court of Appeals has said in Benson v. Cady, 761 F.2d 335, 338 (7th Cir. 1985), dealing with a prisoner's Section 1983 complaint under comparable circumstances:
Benson's amended complaint, which was drafted by an attorney, is not entitled to the protection afforded pro se complaints under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). Rather, the sufficiency of the amended complaint is to be appraised under the standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 42, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 100, 101-102, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957):
[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.
For that purpose Lucien's well-pleaded allegations must be accepted as true, with all reasonable inferences drawn in his favor ( Marmon Group, Inc. v. Rexnord, Inc., 822 F.2d 31, 34 (7th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)).
Lucien asserts that Peters and Godinez transferred him from Stateville to Pontiac Correctional Center ("Pontiac") in retaliation for his litigation activities--in that respect Lucien focuses particularly on the Johnson lawsuit referred to in n.1. That action is brought not against Peters or Godinez, but against three Commissioners of the Illinois Court of Claims. Lucien claims in that action that his constitutional rights have been violated by delays in processing his pending cases in the Court of Claims.
As for the present case, here is how Lucien's counsel describes the Complaint's allegations (Lucien Mem. 6-7):
(1) From 1980 to 1990, Plaintiff held a low escape risk status. (Complaint at P 7).
(2) In 1990, Plaintiff's identity as a named Plaintiff in the Inmate A suit was revealed, even though such information was subject to a protective order. (Complaint at P 9).
(3) In 1990, while at Pontiac, Plaintiff's escape risk status was raised to high and Plaintiff was subjected to repeated disciplinary infractions before he was able to secure a transfer out of Pontiac. (Complaint at PP 10, 11, 13).
(4) From August 8, 1990 to July 22, 1993, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Menard Correctional Center and the Stateville Correctional Center, and received only one minor disciplinary infraction. (Complaint at PP 13-14).
(5) On March 8, 1993, while housed at Stateville, Plaintiff filed pro se Lucien v. Johnson et al., 93 C 0400 (N.D. Ill.), an action against three Commissioners of the Illinois Court of Claims alleging various constitutional violations arising from the handling of Plaintiff's pending cases in the Illinois Court of Claims. (Complaint at P 17).
(6) On July 11, 1993, Defendant's motion to dismiss was partially denied and they were ordered to respond to Plaintiff's complaint. (Complaint at P 18).
(7) On June 15, 1993, the Court appointed Latham & Watkins to represent ...
Buy This Entire Record For