The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
Case Management Order #1 (Merit Review)
The plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Western Illinois Correctional Center, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 regarding events that recently occurred there.
The court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to conduct a merit review of the Complaint, and through such process to identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are "frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . . . ." A merit review hearing was scheduled to aid the court in this review, but was cancelled as unnecessary. The Complaint and exhibits already clearly set out the claims.
The merit review standard is the same as the motion to dismiss standard. The plaintiff's pro se complaint is liberally construed, taking the allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Dismissal is appropriate only if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Haines, 404 U.S. at 521.
On May 28, 2006, the plaintiff was treated at the healthcare unit for swelling and uncontrollable itching of his feet. He was prescribed ointment, but his condition worsened, causing the plaintiff to file an emergency grievance for medical treatment. Defendant Zimmerman approved the grievance and the plaintiff saw a doctor the next day. The doctor prescribed more ointment, pills, and an order for the plaintiff to wear his rubber shower shoes rather than his boots.
Officers harassed the plaintiff for wearing the shower shoes by repeatedly questioning the plaintiff, even though each shift commander had a copy of the doctor's orders. Defendants Bunn, Whitaker, Woodward and Ward regularly provoked the plaintiff and accused him of lying to manipulate the doctor. They repeatedly required the plaintiff to prove his condition by removing his socks, and threatened to put him in segregation if he did not keep the doctor's orders on him at all times. The plaintiff was often forced to miss the chow line, or often did not have sufficient time to eat because of the officers' repeated questioning about the shower shoes. Defendant Swenney ordered the plaintiff to wear his boots despite the doctor's orders. Whitaker conducted pat down searches on the plaintiff every time the plaintiff left the unit. The plaintiff filed grievances about this harassment.
On July 24, 2006, Judge Difanis dismissed as frivolous the plaintiff's state court petition for post-judgment relief. On July 31, 2006, Defendant Jennings wrote the plaintiff a disciplinary ticket for filing a frivolous lawsuit, based on Judge Difanis' dismissal. Defendant Ashby and Davis (who is not a defendant) held a hearing on the ticket. Ashby told the plaintiff to save his crying for the grievance process because Ashby was intended to "slam the plaintiff." Ashby left the hearing before it concluded, remarking, "You'll think twice before you write another staff up you can bet that." Defendant Ashby and Davis recommended that the plaintiff lose six months of good time. Defendant Zimmerman approved.
The plaintiff's grievances regarding all these issues were intercepted by officers and never reached his counselor, in order to prevent the plaintiff from exhausting his administrative remedies. Additionally, four of the plaintiff's outgoing legal mail envelopes were returned to him sometime during the night of July 25, 2006, torn open, in an attempt to prevent him from filing complaints. The plaintiff no longer files grievances because he fears reprisal. The law library is so inadequate that it hinders inmates from pursuing claims against staff misconduct. The plaintiff asserts that all these conditions taken together amount to interference with his right to access the courts.
The plaintiff asserts that the officers gave him a hard time because of his emergency grievance seeking medical treatment for his feet. His allegations, though, give rise to an inference that the plaintiff was given a hard time because he was wearing shower shoes, not because of the emergency grievance he filed. The allegations fits better into an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim: the officers intentionally interfered with prescribed medical treatment. "Deliberate indifference can arise by a failure to provide prompt treatment for serious medical needs or by intentionally interfering with treatment once prescribed." Chapman v. Keltner, 241 F.3d at 845. The plaintiff will also be allowed to proceed on his retaliation claim at this point.
The plaintiff also states a claim that Defendant Jennings, Ashby and Zimmerman retaliated against him for his grievances. The plaintiff seems to allege that the rule against frivolous lawsuits was selectively enforced against him because of his prior grievances. Liberally construed, he says other inmates who filed the same sorts of lawsuits and also suffered dismissals for frivolousness were not subject to the kind of punishment he received. This kind of challenge is not necessarily barred by Heck and progeny, even though the plaintiff lost good time. See Johnson v. Litscher, 260 F.3d 826, 830-31 (7th Cir. 2001)("It is the act of discipline that constitutes the retaliatory conduct-a separate issue from whether [the plaintiff] was, in fact, guilty of the conduct alleged in the reports."). The plaintiff also seems to assert this unequal treatment violated his right to equal protection. At this point, the court cannot rule out a "class of one" equal protection challenge at this point. See Nevel v. Village of Schaumburg, 297 F.3d 673, 681 (7th Cir. 2002)(citations omitted)("to succeed under such a theory, the [plaintiff] must show that [he was] (1) 'intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment"; or (2) 'that the government is treating unequally those individuals who are prima facie identical in all relevant respects, and that the cause of the differential treatment is a "totally illegitimate animus toward the plaintiff . . ."); Sellars v. City of Gary, 453 F.3d 848, 850-51 (7th Cir. 2006)( "Similarly situated" means "'identical [to the plaintiff] in all relevant respects.'").
The plaintiff does not have a procedural due process claim, however. Ashby's early exit and his "anticipatory judgment" do not suggest due process violations. If the plaintiff is saying that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty as charged, that challenge goes to the validity of the discipline and is barred by Heck.
As to the access-to-courts claim, "the right of access to the courts is the right of an individual, whether free or incarcerated, to obtain access to the courts without undue interference. The right of individuals to pursue legal redress for claims that have a reasonable basis in law or fact is protected by the First Amendment right to Petition and the Fourteenth ...