United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.
Randy Rodriguez, an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
occurred at Vandalia Correctional Center. Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages. 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
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). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross "the line between
possibility and plausibility." Id. at 557. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d816, 821 (7th Cir.
careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary
Vandalia Correctional Center on October 1, 2014, Shawn
Ritchey wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary report. (Doc. 1, p.
6). The disciplinary report states that Plaintiff was seen
participating in a gang fight between inmates. (Doc. 1, p.
12-13). On October 2, 2104, an adjustment committee,
comprised of Henry Teverbaugh and Brice Springman, found
Plaintiff guilty of the charges based on the disciplinary
report alone. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff alleges that they
failed to conduct a proper investigation. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He
also alleges that he was not given adequate time to prepare
for the hearing, and that he was transferred out immediately
after the hearing. (Doc. 1-1, p. 3). The Committee also
prohibited Plaintiff from calling witnesses. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Chief Administrative Officer James Luth signed off on the
disciplinary report on October 3, 2014. (Doc. 1, p. 6). As a
result of the ticket, Plaintiff received one year C grade,
one year segregation, loss of one year good time credit, a
disciplinary transfer, one year phone restriction, one year
commissary restriction, one year visiting restriction, and
six months contact visit restriction. (Doc. 1, p. 10)
on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into
three counts. 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.
Count 1: Defendants denied Plaintiff his due process rights
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when they refused to
allow him to call witnesses at his adjustment committee
Count 2: Defendants denied Plaintiff his equal protection
rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when they
found him guilty of fighting during ...