Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Babish

July 20, 2007

CHRIS DAVIS, #N74262 PLAINTIFF,
v.
SCOTT J. BABISH, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Virginia M. Kendall

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Chris Davis ("Davis) brings this action against Defendants, Scott J. Babish ("Babish"), Paul Morgan ("Morgan"), Sandra L. Hawkins ("Hawkins"), Bruce C. Faulkner ("Faulkner"), Anna Hill ("Hill"), Melody J. Ford ("Ford"), Kenneth R. Briley ("Briley), and Roger E. Walker, Jr. ("Walker") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his due process rights while acting under color of state law as officers of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). Relying on the Court's supplemental jurisdiction, Davis also asserts two state law claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process arising out of the same set of facts. Defendants move to dismiss Davis's due process and retaliation claims.

For reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Davis's due process and retaliation claims is granted and the claims are dismissed with prejudice. Davis's pendent state law claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process are dismissed with prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

At the motion to dismiss stage, all of the plaintiff's allegations are accepted as true. Davis is an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet, Illinois. On or about February 10, 2004, a disciplinary report was filed against Davis alleging his possession of dangerous contraband and unauthorized property in view of the fact that a screw driver was found in a pipe chase outside his jail cell. Pl.'s Am. Compl. ¶ 8. Babish signed the disciplinary report and Morgan was listed as a witness. Id. at ¶ 9.

On February 18, 2004, the prison Adjustment Committee found Davis guilty of the charges. Id. at ¶ 11. The report states: "C/O Morgan indicated that their [sic] was evidence observed in the cell that indicated the screwdriver had been pushed out of the cell into the pipe chase." Id. Morgan did not appear before the Adjustment Committee and did not make such a statement. Id. at ¶ 12. Hawkins and Faulkner signed the Adjustment Committee report and Briley concurred in the decision. Id. at ¶ 13. Subsequently, Davis filed at least three grievances claiming that he was being framed and insisting that it was impossible for the screwdriver to have come from inside his cell. Id. at ¶ 14.

On May 12, 2004, Hill issued a Grievance Officer Report affirming the finding of guilt and denying Davis the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. Id. at ¶ 16. Briley concurred in the decision. Id. On August 24, 2004, the Administrative Review Board remanded the case to Briley "to have an investigation conducted to determine whether or not it is possible for the screwdriver to fit through the grating." Id. at ¶ 18. Ford signed the report and Walker concurred in the decision. Id.

On May 18, 2005, the Internal Affairs Office conducted an experiment and determined that it was impossible for the screwdriver to have come from the inside of the Davis's cell. Id. at ¶ 19. On or about July 10, 2005, Davis spoke to Morgan and determined that the statements attributed to him were false. Id. at ¶ 20. Morgan signed a statement stating that the prison administrators had never contacted him about the incident and admitting that workers might have left the screwdriver in the pipe chase. Id. Davis wrote to Briley, enclosing Morgan's statement and asking him to intervene. Id. at ¶ 21.

At some point during the summer of 2005, the Adjustment Committee report was altered to read: "Officer Morgan physically took the screwdriver and put it through the grating of the cell vent to show that the screwdriver does indeed fit through the grating." Id. at ¶ 23. Although Hawkins and Faulkner allegedly signed this report, the signatures do not appear to match their signatures on the February 18, 2004 report. Id. at ¶ 24. Briley concurred in the report. Id. at ¶ 26. The Administrative Review Board "finalized" its decision on August 25, 2005. Id. at ¶ 27. The Board concluded: "This office is reasonably certain [Davis] committed the offense and recommends the grievance be denied." Id.

On September 26, 2005, an Internal Affairs investigative report definitively stated that it was impossible for the screwdriver to have come from inside Davis's cell. Id. at ¶ 29. On January 5, 2006, the Administrative Review Board recommended that Davis's record be expunged. Id. Davis received a Return of Grievance letter, dated March 2, 2006, stating that his record had been expunged. Id.

STANDARD

When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. See Murphy v. Walker, 51 F.3d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1995). A plaintiff need not allege all facts involved in the claim. See Sanjuan v. American Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994). However, in order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the claim must be supported by facts that, if taken as true, at least plausibly suggest that he is entitled to relief. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). Specifically, such a set of facts must "raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" of illegality. Id. at 1965.

DISCUSSION

Davis's Due ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.