The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff previously was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and he has tendered his initial partial filing fee as ordered. This action arises out of two disciplinary tickets Plaintiff received while at Menard, as discussed below.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening.-- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.-- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is legally frivolous and thus subject to summary dismissal.
TICKET DATED JULY 25, 2002
Plaintiff filed a request for law library access, claiming that he had a court deadline of 10 days to file a reply in the appellate court. A call pass was issued, directing that he provide proof of his court deadline when he came to the library. Plaintiff was unable to provide any documentation of that deadline, and apparently this was not the first time that he was unable to verify the existence of a court deadline he claimed to have. Defendant Rea issued a disciplinary ticket, citing him with providing false information, abuse of privileges, and disobeying a direct order.
At the hearing, Plaintiff claimed that he had not told Rea he had a court deadline; rather, he claimed that she misunderstood his request for law library time. The adjustment committee did not accept his explanation, and he was found guilty of all three charges. As a result, he was demoted to B-grade and lost his commissary privilege for one month. All grievances and appeals regarding this ticket were denied.
When a plaintiff brings an action under § 1983 for procedural due process violations, he must show that the state deprived him of a constitutionally protected interest in "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990). Plaintiff claims that he was demoted to B-grade and denied commissary privilege for one month. However, these allegations do not present a viable constitutional claim. See, e.g., Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d 754, 762 n.8 (7th Cir. 1997) (and cases cited therein) (no protected liberty interest in demotion to C-grade status and loss of commissary privileges). Therefore, he has not presented a viable constitutional claim regarding this incident, and this claim is dismissed with prejudice.
TICKET DATED NOVEMBER 7, 2002
In November 2002, Defendant West found two "kites" in the law library mail, purportedly written by inmate Melvin Presswood. These "kites" indicated a desire to have sexual relations with West, to escape from Menard, and to kill West's husband. An investigation determined that Presswood had not written this documents; rather, they had been written by Plaintiff. He received a ticket for conspiracy to ...