Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Jaimet

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 17, 2018




         Plaintiff 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).

         This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(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 such relief.

         An 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. 2009).

         Upon 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 summary dismissal.

         The Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff 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.[1] (Doc. 9). The Court found that justice required the amendment and directed that the Amended Complaint be filed on July 11, 2018. (Doc. 11).

         The 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).

         Plaintiff 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.

         On 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).

         Plaintiff 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. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.