The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:
Friday, 02 November, 2012 01:36:19 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in Lawrence Correctional Center, pursues procedural due process claims arising from a prison disciplinary hearing and punishment. The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The Court is required by § 1915A to review a Complaint filed by a prisoner against a governmental entity or officer and, through such process, to identify cognizable claims, dismissing any claim that is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." A hearing is held if necessary to assist the Court in this review, but, in this case, the Court concludes that no hearing is necessary. The Complaint and its attachments are clear enough on their own for this Court to perform its merit review of Plaintiff's Complaint.
The review standard under § 1915A is the same as the notice pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000). To state a claim, the allegations must set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to give "'fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007)(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(add'l citation omitted)). The factual "allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a 'speculative level.'" Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)(citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555-56). However, pro se pleadings are liberally construed when applying this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009).
On April 6, 2011, Defendant Standley wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary report charging Plaintiff with contraband, abuse of privileges, conspiracy, violating state or federal laws, and trading or trafficking. (Offender Disciplinary Report, d/e 6, p. 6-7.) The report states in relevant part:
Through an investigation and inmate JORDAN'S (B42953) own admission it has been substantiated that JORDAN violated the above Department Rules. Jordan stated that he did arrange for contraband to be sent into Logan Correctional Center by his wife DENISE JORDAN through a girl named JEWEL. JORDAN stated that "ABDUL" brought the stuff back to him. JORDAN identified "ABDUL" as inmate MCGEE. JORDAN stated that he did receive four or five magazines . . ., cologne, teeth whiteners, toothpaste, (2) toothbrushes, (1) bottle of Listerine mouthwash, and a pair of glasses witth [sic] transition lenses not available at Logan C.C. it should be noted that all the above mentioned stuff was confiscated from JORDAN'S property in cell 11-N-12. JORDAN stated that he did ask DENISE to help MOORE (N50682) get stuff in through MOORE'S wife GEORGIA.
It should be noted that this Investigator contacted the Health Care Unit and verified that the Transition Lense [sic] Glasses would not have been issued from the HCU at Logan.
JORDAN stated that he does not know how MCGEE and JEWEL were getting the contraband into Logan C.C. as he was working with MCGEE and no one else. It should be noted that JORDAN violated the above department Rules as well as the State Statute concerning Conspiracy to bringing contraband into a State Penal Institution 720 ilcs 5/82. It should be noted that JORDAN used the telephone system and Postal Service to facilitate introduction of said contraband into a State Penal institution. JORDAN was positively identified using his State ID.
Plaintiff was served with the disciplinary report on April 6, 2011. On April 11, 2011, a disciplinary hearing was held on the charges, and Plaintiff was found guilty of all charges. He received a disciplinary transfer, one year of segregation, demotion to C grade for one year, and the revocation of one year of good conduct credit. (Adjustment Committee Final Summary Report, d/e 5, p. 8.) However, that revocation of good time was ultimately reduced to one month. (Disciplinary Reduction Notification, d/e 5, p. 3.) Plaintiff alleges ...