United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN CHIEF JUDGE.
matter is before the Court for case management. On January 2,
2017, the Court conducted a preliminary review of
Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to § 1915A. (Doc. 8).
The Court divided the action into 10 counts. Counts 1 through
4 were referred for further review, Counts 5 through 8 were
dismissed, and Counts 9 through 10 were severed into a new
action. The Court also dismissed 8 defendants, without
prejudice, because Plaintiff failed to include them in the
case caption or list of defendants. See Myles v. United
States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding
that to be properly considered a party, a defendant must be
“specif[ied] in the caption”). Upon further
review, the Court has determined that 3 of these individuals
- Officer Bump (identified as C. Bump in the case caption),
Shaun Gree or Ghee (identified as S. Gree in the case
caption), and Sara Johnson (identified as S. Johnson in the
case caption) were actually identified as defendants in the
case caption. Due to an oversight, however, these individuals
had not been identified as defendants in the Court's
docket and the Court failed to identify this oversight when
conducting its preliminary review. Accordingly, it was error
for the Court to dismiss Defendants Officer Bump
(hereinafter, Bump), Shaun Gree or Ghee (hereinafter, Gree),
and Sara Johnson (hereinafter, Johnson) pursuant to
light of this error, the Court, sua sponte, deems it
appropriate to amend its prior order by interlineation. The
Court has reviewed the allegations in the Complaint as they
pertain to Defendants Bump, Gree, and Johnson. Considering
these allegations, the Court revises its referral order as
1, 2, 3, and 4 shall also proceed as to Defendants
Bump and Gree.
Complaint fails to state a claim as to Johnson. Plaintiff
claims that Johnson, the Chair of the Administrative Review
Board, violated his rights by denying his grievances and/or
failing to overturn the allegedly false disciplinary ticket
and conviction. Generally, the denial of a grievance -
standing alone - is not enough to violate the United States
Constitution. See, e.g., George v. Abdullah, 507
F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Ruling against a
prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or
contribute to the violation.”); Owens v.
Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he
alleged mishandling of [a prisoner's] grievance by
persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the
underlying conduct states no claim.”). See also
Estate of Miller by Chassie v. Marberry, 847 F.3d 425,
428-29 (7th Cir. 2017) (“inaction following receipt of
a complaint about someone else's conduct is not a source
of liability”). Nonetheless, a grievance official may
be subject to liability for deliberate indifference if he or
she “knows about unconstitutional conduct and
facilitates, approves, condones, or ‘turn[s] a blind
eye' to it.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d
768, 781 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Vance v. Peters, 97
F.3d 987, 992-93 (7th Cir. 1996).
the claims pertaining to Johnson suggest nothing more than
the denial of a grievance by an individual who was not
involved in the underlying constitutional violation. There is
no indication that Johnson is subject to liability under the
standard articulated in Perez or related authority.
As such, Plaintiff's claims pertaining to Johnson fall
short of stating a constitutional claim.
Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to
amend the docket sheet by adding BUMP, GREE, AND
JOHNSON as defendants in CM/ECF.
IS ORDERED that Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, shall
also receive further review as to
BUMP and GREE.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that claims directed against
JOHNSON are DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. The Clerk of the Court is
DIRECTED to terminate
JOHNSON as a party in CM/ECF.
respect to COUNTS 1, 2, 3, and
4, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for
BUMP and GREE: (1) Form 5
(Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a
Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons).
Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a
copy of the Complaint (Doc. 1), a copy of the original
Referral Order (Doc. 8), and this Memorandum and Order to
Defendants' place of employment as identified by
Plaintiff. If Defendants fail to sign and return the Waiver
of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days
from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take
appropriate steps to effect formal service on Defendants, and
the Court ...