The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court for consideration of various pending motions including: the defendants' dispositive motions [d/e 26, 41, 72]; the parties various discovery motions [d/e 53, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67, 75] and plaintiff's motion concerning service of certain defendants. [d/e 46]
On December 3, 2004, the plaintiff filed this case with the clerk of the court. On January 27, 2005 the court conducted a merit review of the plaintiff's complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The plaintiff, Brian Dugan, had filed his lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming that his constitutional rights were violated at Pontiac Correctional Center. The plaintiff had named 14 defendants including Warden Stephen Mote; Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) Director Roger Walker; Officer P. Parker; Nurse Skeens; Grievance Officer Terry Kennedy; Administrative Review Board Member Douglas Cravens; Lieutenants Larry Deathridge and Russell Eckert; Adjustment Committee Members Erika Howard, Richard Robinson and Anabelle Motteler; Illinois Department of Corrections Legal Services Attorney Diane Marselek; and the designees for the warden and the IDOC's director.
The court reviewed the plaintiff's intended claims with the plaintiff during the merit review hearing. The plaintiff said on August 26 and 27, 2003 and September 2 and 3, 2003, he was taken to the Health Care Unit and told he must voluntarily submit a blood sample for DNA testing. The plaintiff said he refused and was issued three disciplinary tickets. The plaintiff said he was found guilty of each, but did not lose any good time credits as a result. The plaintiff further stated Defendants Parker, Skeens, Deathridge, Eckert and Mote were involved in these events.
The plaintiff said Adjustment Committee Members Howard, Motteler and Robinson found him guilty after hearings were held on September 2 and 11, 2003. The plaintiff stated these defendants misrepresented the record of the proceedings, refused any witnesses and refused to allow the plaintiff to prepare a written statement. The plaintiff further claimed that due to his transfer to segregation, he was also denied all property and was not allowed to prepare a defense.
The plaintiff says Defendants Cravens, Mote and Walker signed off on the discipline. In addition, the plaintiff says Grievance Officer Kennedy misrepresented his claims.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that the plaintiff has adequately alleged:
1) that the defendants denied his due process rights in issuing the disciplinary tickets and during the disciplinary hearings; and
2) that requiring the plaintiff to voluntarily submit to the blood test violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The claims were against the defendants in their individual capacities only.
The case was then referred to the magistrate judge for consideration of any filing deficiencies and the pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on April 11, 2005, and the clerk filed the plaintiff's original complaint.
The defendants have filed dispositive motions that ignore the merit review order and consider additional claims not identified in this order. Beyond the two claims identified by the court, the defendants also state they did not violate the plaintiff's First and Fifth Amendment rights, did not retaliate against him and did not violate the equal protection clause. The basis of the defendants argument is that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for any of these violations and therefore the claims should be dismissed.
The court found two claims in the plaintiff's complaint and agrees that the plaintiff did not adequately allege any other violations. The plaintiff participated in the merit review hearing which was specifically held to identify viable claims. The court notes the plaintiff has not filed any motions asking the court to recognize any additional claims since that hearing. Therefore, the court will not consider any arguments that do not address the two claims specifically outlined in the merit review order. The court ...