United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Tirnell Williams, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections currently housed at Pinckneyville Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff requests injunctive relief. (Doc. 3).
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Amended Complaint 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 of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
careful review of the Amended Complaint and any supporting
exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its
authority under Section 1915A; this action is subject to
originally brought the claims in this action in Case No.
18-1015-NJR. On June 6, 2018, the Court determined that
Plaintiff had brought claims not properly joined and severed
certain claims into this action. (Doc. 1). On July 9, 2018,
Plaintiff submitted a proposed amended complaint to the
Court, which the Court construed as a Motion for Leave to
file First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9). The Court found that
justice required the amendment and directed that the Amended
Complaint be filed on July 11, 2018. (Doc. 11).
Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff received a
disciplinary report on March 29, 2018, regarding prescription
medication found concealed in his cell. (Doc. 12, pp. 1, 14).
On April 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted statements to Heck and
Myers, who were on the adjustment committee. (Doc. 12, p. 1).
Although Plaintiff requested that the adjustment committee
interview witnesses and review camera footage, they did
neither prior to his adjustment committee hearing on April 4,
2018. Id. Plaintiff was punished on April 15, 2018.
(Doc. 12, p. 2).
was allegedly served a disciplinary report regarding his
possession of two thumb drives on April 6, 2018, but he
denies ever receiving it. He likewise denies that he refused
to sign the disciplinary report, as Defendant Hicks
represented. (Doc. 12, pp. 2, 17). Plaintiff finally received
the report on April 10, 2018. (Doc. 12, p. 2). A hearing was
held with Heck and Skorch on April 11, 2018. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he was not given notice 24 hours
before the hearing. Id. Plaintiff further objected
to the hearing on the grounds that (1) the ticket was not
served on April 6, 2018; (2) Lieutenant Wrangler, not Hicks,
ultimately gave him the ticket, even though the ticket listed
Hicks as the server; (3) he was not notified 24 hours before
the hearing; and (4) Skorch's inclusion on the adjustment
committee was inappropriate because Skorch was a witness on
his behalf. Id.
April 13, 2018, Plaintiff was disciplined with two months in
segregation. (Doc. 12, p. 3). Plaintiff mailed numerous
requests to Jaimet regarding the April 11 hearing, but his
requests were ignored. (Doc. 12, pp. 3, 13).
met with non-defendant Warden Thompson on April 23, 2018, and
complained about the alleged due process violations. (Doc.
12, p. 3). Thompson arranged for Plaintiff to have another
hearing. Id. On April 25, 2018, Plaintiff was
summoned to a disciplinary hearing, but once again, he failed
to receive 24 hours' notice of the hearing, and
Defendants refused to call his witnesses. Id.
Plaintiff objected to the hearing on the ground that the
officers were not impartial because they were aware of Case
No. 18-1015. Id. As a result of the make-up hearing,
on May 10, 2018, Plaintiff received the same two months of
segregation he received before. Id. Jaimet agreed
with the sanction. Id. ...