United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division
G. REINHARD UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE.
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
 is granted. The court authorizes and orders the trust
fund officer at plaintiff's place of incarceration to
forward to the Clerk of Court an initial partial filing fee
of $19.24, and to continue making monthly deductions from
plaintiff's account in accordance with this order. The
court directs the clerk to mail a copy of this order to the
trust fund office at the Dixon Correctional Center. However,
the court summarily dismisses the complaint on initial review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a
colorable federal claim. The case is terminated.
Plaintiff's motions for attorney representation  and
for service of process at government expense  are denied
as moot. This dismissal counts as one of plaintiff's
three allotted dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Corey Shelton, an Illinois state prisoner, brings this
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants, officials at
the Dixon Correctional Center, violated plaintiff's
constitutional rights by denying him due process and equal
protection. More specifically, plaintiff alleges that an
internal affairs investigator wrongfully pressed prison
disciplinary action against him, that a work supervisor
improperly removed him from his job assignment, and that the
supervisor, the warden, and a counselor refused to restore
him to his job after he was exonerated of the charge.
Currently before the court are plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis, his complaint for initial
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, his motion for attorney
representation, and his motion for service of process at
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
demonstrates that he cannot prepay the filing fee. The court
therefore grants his motion. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(b)(1) and (2), the court orders: (1)
plaintiff to immediately pay (and the facility having custody
of him to automatically remit) $19.24 to the Clerk of Court
for payment of the initial partial filing fee and (2)
plaintiff to pay (and the facility having custody of him to
automatically remit) to the Clerk of Court twenty percent of
the money he receives for each calendar month during which he
receives $10.00 or more, until the $350 filing fee is paid in
full. The court directs the Clerk of Court to ensure that a
copy of this order is mailed to each facility where plaintiff
is housed until the filing fee has been paid in full. All
payments shall be sent to the Clerk of Court, United States
District Court, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604, attn: Cashier's Desk, 20th Floor, and shall
clearly identify plaintiff's name and the case number
assigned to this case.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a), the court is
required to screen pro se prisoners' complaints
and dismiss the complaint, or any claims therein, if the
court determines that the complaint or claim is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
199, 214 (2007); Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645,
649 (7th Cir. 2013).
screen prisoner litigation claims in the same manner as
ordinary motions to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
See Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir.
2011). A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the
sufficiency of the complaint. See Hallinan v. Fraternal
Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820
(7th Cir. 2009). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). The short and plain statement under Rule 8(a)(2)
must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citation omitted). Under the federal notice pleading
standards, a plaintiff's “[f]actual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Put differently, a “complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint under the
plausibility standard, [courts] accept the well-pleaded facts
in the complaint as true.” Alam v. Miller Brewing
Co., 709 F.3d 662, 665-66 (7th Cir. 2013). Courts also
construe pro se complaints liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Corey Shelton is an Illinois state prisoner, confined at the
Dixon Correctional Center at all times relevant to this
action. Defendant Dan Newman is a correctional lieutenant at
Dixon, as well as the head of the facility's Internal
Affairs Office. Defendant Chris Melvin is the prison's
Superintendent of Eyeglass Industry. Defendant Christine
Terry is a counselor at Dixon. Defendant Donald Enloe was
Dixon's warden at the time of the events giving rise to
alleges the following facts, assumed true for purposes of the
court's threshold review: prior to the events underlying
the complaint, plaintiff held a job in the prison's
Optical Lab, under the supervision of defendant Melvin.
Plaintiff worked in the prison mailroom, where his
responsibilities included mailing out eyeglasses to vendors
that had contracts with the Illinois Department of
occasionally issued warnings and reminders to his prison
employees that they had to comport with certain rules. In
2013 Melvin released a memo to his inmate employees
concerning noise levels, inmates “visiting” on
the job, and the appropriate attire for employees.
See  at 18. The memo warned inmates that due to
recurring issues in these areas, prison employees faced
progressively increased discipline for rule infractions, from
a verbal warning for a first offense, to a one-day suspension
for a second offense, to termination for a third offense.
See Id. at 18-21.
never received any complaints about his job performance. The
packages he sent out were never returned because he had erred
in any manner. He never received a verbal warning for a first
offense, nor was he ever suspended for a second instance of
alleged misconduct. Plaintiff always reported to work on time
and performed his job duties as directed.
seemed to favor certain inmate workers over others. He
designated them as “line leaders, ” referred to
them as his “eyes and ears, ” allowed them to
supervise the other inmate employees, and permitted them to
say and do virtually whatever they pleased. Melvin ...