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.

Whitfield v. Lawrence Correctional Center

February 27, 2008

BENYEHUDAH WHITFIELD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this action for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. Plaintiff also has filed a motion for a copy of the docket sheet (Doc. 15) and a motion asking the Court to enter a scheduling order (Doc. 16).

Plaintiff's pro se amended complaint is divided into the following enumerated counts:

COUNT 1: Against Defendants Anderson; Benton; Boyd; Fairchild; Love; Moran; Ryker; Stevenson; Sutton; Walker; and Wilson for impinging upon his religious practices (denying services and programs) in violation of RLUIPA.

COUNT 2: Against Defendants Anderson; Benton; Boyd; Fairchild; Love; Moran; Ryker; Stevenson; Sutton; Walker; and Wilson for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by providing services and programs for other religious groups, but not for the religious group to which Plaintiff belongs.

COUNT 3: Against Defendants Anderson; Benton; Boyd; Bryant; Ernest; Fairchild; Ford; Garnett; Grizzwall; Love; Moran; Ryker; Sutton; Walker; and Wilson for impinging upon his religious practices (denying religious meals) in violation of RLUIPA.

COUNT 4: Against Defendants Anderson; Benton; Boyd; Bryant; Ernest; Fairchild; Ford; Garnett; Grizzwall; Love; Moran; Ryker; Sutton; Walker; and Wilson for violating his right to freely exercise his religion under the First Amendment (denying him religious meals).*fn1

COUNT 5: Against Defendants Anderson; Benton; Boyd; Bryant; Ernest; Fairchild; Ford; Garnett; Grizzwall; Love; Moran; Ryker; Sutton; Walker; and Wilson for impinging upon his religious practices (allocation of funds) in violation of RLUIPA.

COUNT 6: Against Defendants Anderson; Benton; Bryant; Ernest; Fairchild; Ford; Garnett; Grizzwall; Love; Moran; Ryker; Sutton; Walker; and Wilson for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (unequal allocation of funds for religious services and programs).

COUNT 7: Against Defendants Anderson; Benton; Boyd; Bryant; Ernest; Fairchild; Ford; Garnett; Grizzwall; Love; Moran; Ryker; Sutton; Walker; and Wilson for violating Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights (nutritionally inadequate meals).

COUNT 8: Against Defendants Anderson; Benton; Boyd; Bryant; Ernest; Fairchild; Ford; Garnett; Grizzwall; Love; Moran; Ryker; Stevenson; Sutton; Walker; and Wilson for violating Plaintiff's rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment with regard to Counts 1 through 7.

COUNT 9: Against unspecified "officials of IDOC, Lawrence, and Pinckneyville" for violating the First Amendment by failing to take the necessary steps to accommodate "the religious needs of African Hebrew Israelites" when such officials had notice of the failure to accommodate their religious needs given the number of grievances and lawsuits filed.

COUNT 10: Against Defendants Goins and McCallister for substantially impinging Plaintiff's right to freely exercise his religion in violation of RLUIPA and for violating his free exercise rights under the First Amendment by forcing him to receive a "T.B. shot" on the Sabbath.

COUNT 11: Against Defendants Anderson; Benton; Boyd; Bryant; Ernest; Fairchild; Ford; Garnett; Grizzwall; Love; Moran; Ryker; Stevenson; Sutton; Walker; Wilson; Goins; and McCallister for "official misconduct, unprofessionalism, and negligence" with regard to Counts 1 through 10.

COUNT 12: Against Defendants Illinois Department of Corrections; Lawrence Correctional Center; Pinckneyville Correctional Center; Anderson; Benton; Boyd; Bryant; Ernest; Fairchild; Ford; Garnett; Grizzwall; Love; Moran; Ryker; Stevenson; Sutton; Walker; Wilson; Goins; and McCallister for having inadequate policies, for failure to train, and for failure to take corrective action when they had the opportunity to do so.

COUNT 13: Against the "Town of Sumner, Illinois," and the "Town of Pinckneyville, Illinois," for failing "to ensure that [prison] officials . provided all . resources and protection the Plaintiff was entitled to."

This case is before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...


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.