The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, 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. This action was first filed in the Northern District of Illinois. That court dismissed several claims that related to Plaintiff's prior litigation, as well as many that were time-barred. In addition, Defendants Lambertson, Briley, Peterson, Davis, Catchings, Schonauer, Ruffin, Walls, McAdory, Hinsley, Uchtman, Middendorf, Murray, and Goforth were dismissed before the action was transferred to this District. The remaining claims were then summarized as such:
The remaining claims arose while the plaintiff was housed at Menard Correctional Center and concern the conduct or [sic] employees at that institution. These claims include forgery and conspiracy to commit forgery by defendants when the designees of wardens and other IDOC official signed grievances filed by the plaintiff; violation of the plaintiff's right to practice his religion and conspiracy thereof when he was removed from an approved religious diet some time in 2004; robber and conspiracy to commit robbery, as well as violation of the plaintiff's due process rights and conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of due process, when samples of the plaintiff's DNA were taken at the end of 2004 and again in 2005; obstruction of the plaintiff's efforts to exhaust the administrative grievance procedure, and conspiracy thereof in 2001, 2002, and 2004; and unspecified official misconduct by all defendants.
This Court's first task, therefore, is to identify which of these remaining claims relates to each of the Defendants.
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(f) and 10(b), the Court finds it appropriate to break the claims in Plaintiff's pro se complaint and other pleadings into numbered counts, as shown below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.
COUNT 1: Against Defendants Walker, Snyder, McAdory, Hinsley, Uchtman, Briley, Lambertson, and Does I-V for forgery (¶¶ A1-11).*fn1
COUNT 2: Against Defendants Lambertson, Briley, Peterson, Davis, and Keim for fraudulent conspiracy (¶¶ B1-5).
COUNT 3: Against Defendants Lambertson, for extortion (¶¶ C1-13).
COUNT 4: Against unspecified defendants, challenging the constitutionality of 735 ILSC 5/13-202.1 (¶¶ D1-11).
COUNT 5: Against Defendants Keim, Snyder, Walker, Spiller, Lawrence, Winters, Fairchild, and Doe VIII for interference with his religious practices (¶¶ E1-14).
COUNT 6: Against Defendants Doe IX, Walker, Briley, McAdory, Hinsley, Uchtman, Jaenke, Diercks, Parnell, Dillman, Doe X, Doe XI, Maue, Wilson, Lock, Martin, Goforth, Doe V, Doe VI, Fairchild for robbery (¶¶ F1-18). COUNT 7: Against Defendants Walker, Uchtman, Jaenke, Maue, Martin, Parnell, Doe XI, Wilson, Locke, Goforth, Doe V, Doe VI, Fairchild, Doe I for procedural due process violations (¶¶ G1-26).
COUNT 8: Against Defendants Briley, Walker, Lawrence, Middendorf, McAdory, Hinsley, Uchtman, Murray, Fairchild, Joe I, Doe III, Doe IV, Doe VI, and Doe VIII for obstructing the administrative grievance process (¶¶ H1-11).
COUNT 9: Against Defendants Goforth, Schonauer, Ruffin, Griffin, Walker, Briley, McAdory, Hinsley, Uchtman, Doe I, Joe II, Doe III, Doe IV, Doe VI, Doe VIII, Fairchild and Catching for violation of Illinois Department of Corrections ("I.D.O.C.") rules (¶¶ J1-17).
COUNT 10: Against Defendants Lambertson, Keim, Peterson, Briley, Snyder, Walker, McAdory, Hinsley, Uchtman for violation of equal protection (¶¶ K1-18). COUNT 11: Against unspecified defendants for official misconduct (¶¶ L1-11).
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; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
In his first claim, Plaintiff charges that the Doe Defendants willfully forged signatures of wardens and other administrators on responses to Plaintiff's various grievances. He invokes 720 ILCS 5/17-3 as basis for this claim, arguing that Defendants are ...