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.

Lacyy v. Rains

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 2, 2017

REGINALD LACY, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID RAINS, ERICKSON, and BICKERS Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff Reginald Lacy, an inmate in Robinson Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.

         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). 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.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         The Complaint

         On April 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance complaining about how his legal mail was handled. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Unsatisfied with the response, he appealed the grievance to Defendant Rains. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Rains sent Defendants Erickson and Bickers to retaliate against him. Id. Specifically, on April 22, 2016, Plaintiff received a memorandum from Erickson stating that he was unassigned, meaning that he had been terminated from his library job. Id. After filing a grievance, Plaintiff learned he was unassigned due to administrative concerns. (Doc. 1, p. 7).

         Plaintiff sent Erickson a request slip on May 3, 2016 asking for a laundry porter job, which paid the same as the library job. Id. He received a response stating that he was properly placed as unassigned. Id. Plaintiff specifically asked Bickers why he had been unassigned from the library job on May 6, 2016 and Bickers responded that Plaintiff was a troublemaker who liked to file grievances and lawsuits. Id.

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 1 count. 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 - Rains, Bickers, and Erickson retaliated against Plaintiff for filing grievances by removing him from his law library job in violation of the First Amendment.

         To succeed on a First Amendment Retaliation claim, a plaintiff must prove: 1) that he engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment; 2) that he suffered a deprivation that would likely deter First Amendment activity in the future; and 3) that the protected conduct was a “motivating factor” for taking the retaliatory action. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009). In the prison context, where an inmate is alleging retaliation, the inmate must identify the reasons that retaliation has been taken, as well as “the act or acts claimed to have constituted retaliation, ” so as to put those charged with the retaliation on notice of the ...


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.