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.

Saeed Younger v. Donald A. Hulick

April 14, 2011

SAEED YOUNGER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DONALD A. HULICK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

#K-66692,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides, in pertinent part:

(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 that the claims asserted in the complaint must be dismissed at this point in the litigation.

FACTS ALLEGED IN COMPLAINT

On April 20, 2008, Defendant Hume found a book lying on the floor in front of Plaintiff's cell; Plaintiff claims that the book did not belong to him. Based on the contents of the book and the location where it was found, Defendant Hume assumed that the book belonged to Plaintiff; Plaintiff was written a disciplinary ticket for possession of contraband relating to gang or unauthorized activity. The disciplinary report was signed by Defendants Hulick, Rees, and Thomas. Plaintiff was sent to a disciplinary hearing, where Defendants GoForth and Johnson found him guilty and sentenced him to segregation. Plaintiff filed a grievance, which Defendant Suhre denied.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated when he was written a disciplinary ticket and sent to segregation based on a book that wasn't his. A plaintiff states a claim for violation of procedural due process rights when he alleges that defendants have filed and/or approved disciplinary tickets, reports, and other documents that contain false charges that are not supported by any evidence. Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2000); Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1402 (7th Cir. 1994). The issuance of these documents containing false statements rises to a substantive due process violation where the charges were fabricated in retaliation for the plaintiff's exercise of a constitutional right. Id. at 1402-03; see Cain v. Lane, 875 F.2d 1139, 1145 (7th Cir. 1988); Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) (stating that the filing of a false disciplinary charge against a prisoner is actionable under §1983 where it is done for retaliatory purposes).

In this case, there is no substantive due process claim because Plaintiff does not allege that the disciplinary ticket was written against him in retaliation for exercising a constitutional right. Plaintiff does not allege that the ticket was written in the absence of any evidence. To the contrary, Plaintiff states in his complaint that the book was found on the floor outside of his cell, leading to the conclusion that it in fact belonged to him. This is enough to satisfy the 'some evidence' requirement. See Black, 22 F.3d at 1402. Because there was no due process ...


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.