United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge
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).
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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 in the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
Plaintiff filed this action on December 14, 2016, in order to
challenge the PRB's decision to revoke 12 months of
parole. (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).
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.
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.
Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
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 ...