United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
BILLY MCDADE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeding pro se, pursues a § 1983 action
alleging a violation of his religious rights at the Graham
Correctional Center (“Graham”). The case is
before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts
the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements
and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to
“state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d
418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
alleges that Food Supervisors Carlock and Zumwalt denied him
his vegan diet from August 20, 2017 to August 28, 2017.
Plaintiff claims that he maintains a vegan diet in
furtherance of his religion, which is not specified. He
claims that he was on the vegan diet list but that Defendants
Carlock and Zumwalt refused to provide it, wrongly asserting
that Plaintiff had received a regular diet on a prior
occasion. Plaintiff complained to Defendant Shreve, the
Graham Chaplain. Defendant Shreve responded by taking
Plaintiff off of the vegan diet list. Plaintiff was not
reinstated until November 21, 2017, some 45 days later.
Plaintiff claims that he would not eat the regular diet,
suffered hunger and lost weight.
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, prisoners
must be afforded reasonable opportunities to practice their
religion, subject to the legitimate penological concerns of
the prison. Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 719 (7th
Cir. 2011). See Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664, 669
(7th Cir. 2009) (“[a] person's religious beliefs
are personal to that individual; they are not subject to
restriction by the personal theological views of
another.") Here, Plaintiff states a colorable First
Amendment claim against Defendants Carlock, Zumwalt and
Shreve for denying him his religious diet.
also names Warden Foster for his actions in signing-off on
Plaintiff's denied grievances. Section 1983 liability is
predicated on fault, so to be liable, a defendant must be
“personally responsible for the deprivation of a
constitutional right.” Sanville v. McCaughtry,
266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir.2001) (quoting Chavez v. Ill.
State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir.2001)).
Furthermore, officials are liable “for their own
misdeeds, and not for anyone else's.” Burks v.
Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595-96 (7th Cir.2009). Prison
administrators are entitled to relegate to others the primary
responsibility for specific prison functions without becoming
vicariously liable for the failings of their subordinates.
Id. One does not become liable merely for reviewing
the administrative decisions of others. See George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir.2007)
(“[r]uling against a prisoner on an administrative
complaint does not cause or contribute to the
[constitutional] violation.”); Johnson v.
Snyder, 444 F.3d 579, 584 (7th Cir. 2006). Defendant
Foster is DISMISSED.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This case shall proceed solely on the First Amendment
claims against Defendants Carlock, Zumwalt and Shreve,
identified herein. Any claims not identified will not be
included in the case, except in the Court's discretion
upon motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of
court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
Defendant Foster is DISMISSED.
2. Plaintiff files , a motion for recruitment of pro
bono counsel. Plaintiff claims that he attempted to
secure counsel on his own, but provides no corroboration.
See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir.
2007).  is DENIED at this time. In the event that
Plaintiff renews his motion for recruitment of pro
bono counsel, he is to provide copies of the letters
sent to, and received from, the attorneys he has contacted.
3. Plaintiff files , a letter attaching grievances and
records which he asks to be appended to the complaint.  is
GRANTED as the Clerk is directed to file the documents as an
attachment to the complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that in
the future, if he seeks relief of this Court he is to file
the request as a motion, not a letter. Plaintiff's motion
for status  is MOOT.
4. The Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant
to this District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of
Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of
Service; 3) a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this
5. If a Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of
Service to the Clerk within 30 days after the Waiver is sent,
the Court will take appropriate steps to effect formal
service on that Defendant and will require that Defendant pay
the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d)(2). If a Defendant no longer works at
the address provided by Plaintiff, the entity for which
Defendant worked at the time identified in the Complaint
shall provide to the Clerk Defendant's current work
address, or, if not known, Defendant's forwarding
address. This information will be used only for purposes of
effecting service. Documentation of forwarding addresses will
be maintained only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained
in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.
6. Defendants shall file an answer within the prescribed by
Local Rule. A Motion to Dismiss is not an answer. The answer
it to include all defenses appropriate under the Federal
Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings are to address the
issues and claims identified in this Order.
7. Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been
served, but who is not represented by counsel, a copy of
every filing submitted by Plaintiff for consideration by the
Court, and shall also file a certificate of service stating
the date on which the copy was mailed. Any paper received by
a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed
with the Clerk or that fails to include a required
certificate of service will be stricken by the Court.
8. Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need
not send copies of filings to that Defendant or to that
Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file
Plaintiff's document electronically and send notice of
electronic filing to defense counsel. The notice of
electronic filing shall constitute notice to Defendant
pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If electronic ...