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.

Hamilton v. Wright

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 3, 2017

DANIEL ROBERT HAMILTON, #B-26391, Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF WRIGHT, ROBERT LEY, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, MS. BARTON, MR. LAWRENCE, PRISON REVIEW BOARD MEMBER #3, IDOC BOARD MEMBERS, JOHN BALDWIN, and BRUCE RAUNER, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Daniel Hamilton, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in order to challenge the revocation of his parole on December 8, 2016. (Doc. 1). In connection with this challenge, Plaintiff names Menard's clinical services counselors (Ms. Barton and Mr. Lawrence), his parole agent (Jeff Wright), his parole supervisor (Robert Ley), members of the Prison Review Board (“PRB”) (John Doe, Jane Doe, and PRB Member #3), and several high-ranking state officials (IDOC Board Members, John Baldwin, and Governor Rauner). (Doc. 1, pp. 1-3). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against them for numerous constitutional violations and for emotional distress. (Doc. 1, p. 15).

         This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint (Doc. 1) 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 in 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

          Plaintiff filed this action on December 14, 2016, in order to challenge the PRB's decision to revoke 12 months of parole.[1] (Doc. 1, pp. 7-13). Plaintiff attended a parole revocation hearing before the PRB on December 8, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 7). The PRB found him guilty of a parole violation after accepting the statements made by Plaintiff's parole agent in a parole violation report dated November 10, 2016. Id. According to the report, Plaintiff violated Rule #5, which the parole agent listed as a failure to provide a host site for intensive supervision. (Doc. 1, p. 8).

         Plaintiff alleges that he provided Menard's clinical services counselors with the contact information for at least two host sites while he was still incarcerated at Menard. (Doc. 1, p. 9). The counselors contacted a single telephone number he provided for the first host site, but took no further action after learning that the number was out of service. Id. The counselors allegedly made no attempt to contact the alternative numbers he provided. Id. Plaintiff claims that the clinical services counselors are to blame for the violation of Rule #5. Id.

         He now asserts claims against the defendants under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. 1, pp. 10-13). He also brings a state tort claim for emotional distress. (Doc. 1, pp. 10-14). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against all of the defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 15).

         Merits Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

         To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court has organized the claims in ...


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.