United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jabriel Anderson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his
constitutional rights arising from the issuance of an Inmate
Disciplinary Report. He seeks monetary damages.
Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the
Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out
non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a
defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the
factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to
be liberally construed. Rodriquez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
alleges the following: On April 2, 2018, while leaving the
shower room, an officer handcuffed Plaintiff's left hand
and directed him to pull up his pants. (Doc. 1, pp. 7, 8, 11,
21). After pulling up his pants, the officer told him to pull
them up higher and then tightly cuffed both hands.
Id., p. 11. When Plaintiff told the officer that the
cuffs were too tight, the officer responded that they would
be removed upstairs. Id. Plaintiff then proceeded to
leave, but Corrections Officer Fenton told him to step out of
line and wait in the corner. Id., pp. 11,
22. After exchanging words with Fenton, Plaintiff
said he was going to his cell and kept walking. Id.,
pp. 11-12. While walking away he heard Sergeant Fitzgerald
call him, but proceeded to his cell. Id. p. 12. A
few minutes after arriving to his cell, Plaintiff was
handcuffed again and taken to the Special Housing Unit.
Id., pp. 8, 12.
was issued an Inmate Disciplinary Report (“IDR”)
for refusing to comply with a direct order. Id., p.
8. He signed the IDR before he could provide witnesses and so
later sent a list of witnesses to the Adjustment Committee
through institutional mail. Id., pp. 8-9. A
disciplinary hearing was conducted on April 10, 2018, in
which the Adjustment Committee, composed of Chairperson
Brookman and Committee Member Hart, found Plaintiff guilty
and sanctioned him to six months in segregation, grade
revocation, and loss and restriction of various privileges
such as commissary, visitation, law library, religious
services, and mental health programs. Id. pp. 9, 10.
Plaintiff claims that because the Adjustment Committee did
not call or interview any witnesses in his favor, his
procedural due process rights have been violated and a loss
of his privileges has caused unnecessary mental and emotional
anguish. Id. p. 10.
names Chief Administrative Officer of Menard Jacqueline
Lashbrook in the caption as a defendant, but makes no
allegations against her in the body of the complaint.
Plaintiffs are required to associate specific defendants with
specific claims, so that defendants are put on notice of the
claims brought against them and can properly answer the
complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Where a plaintiff
has not included a defendant in his statement of the claim,
the defendant cannot be said to be adequately put on notice
of which claims in the complaint, if any, are directed
against him or her. Furthermore, merely invoking the name of
a potential defendant is not sufficient to state a claim
against that individual. See Collins v. Kibort, 143
F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). And, in the case of those
defendants in supervisory positions, the doctrine of
respondeat superior is not applicable to Section
1983 actions. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724,
740 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has not
alleged that Lashbrook was “personally responsible for
the deprivation of a constitutional right, ”
Id.., and a defendant cannot be liable merely
because he or she supervised a person who caused a
constitutional violation. Accordingly, Defendant Lashbrook
will be dismissed from this action without prejudice.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the claims in this case into the
following two Counts:
Count 1 : Fourteenth Amendment procedural
due process claim against Brookman and Hart for prohibiting
Plaintiff from calling witnesses during his hearing before
the Adjustment Committee.
Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment procedural due
process claim against Fitzgerald for filing a false Inmate
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. Any claim that is
mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is
considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled
under the Twombly pleading
plaintiff brings an action under Section 1983 for procedural
due process violations, he must show that the state deprived
him of a constitutionally protected interest in “life,
liberty, or property” without due process of law.
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990). A court
reviewing a due process claim must, therefore, engage in a
two part inquiry: (1) was there a protected interest at stake
that necessitated the protections demanded ...