United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Norberto Torres, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”) arising from being
confined in disciplinary segregation pursuant to an Inmate
Disciplinary Report (“IDR”) which was
subsequently expunged. 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).
Plaintiff alleges the following: On March 9, 2017,
authorities at Pontiac Correctional Center allegedly found a
handwritten “Latin Folk” questionnaire containing
Plaintiff's name and information and matching his
handwriting. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Plaintiff, who was then housed
at Menard, was issued an IDR for participating in a Security
Threat Group (“STG”) organizational activity.
Id., pp. 6, 11-12. This IDR was given the ticket
number 201700365/1-MEN (the “365 Ticket”).
Id., p. 13.
March 15, 2017, Plaintiff was taken before Defendants
Brookman and Hart, who sat as the Adjustment Committee
conducting a disciplinary hearing on the 365 Ticket.
Id., pp. 6, 13. Brookman and Hart expunged the 365
Ticket, a decision Defendant Lashbrook (as warden of Menard)
later approved. Id.
the 365 Ticket being expunged, Plaintiff was nevertheless
taken to segregation. Id., p. 6. Two days later,
Plaintiff was served a new IDR (2017-00409/1-MEN, the
“409 Ticket”) alleging the exact same offense.
Id., pp. 6, 14. On March 22, 2017, Brookman and Hart
again sat as the Adjustment Committee for a disciplinary
hearing. This time they found Plaintiff guilty and sentenced
him to 3 months in segregation, along with loss of
privileges. Id., pp. 6, 14. Plaintiff was never
given a copy of the questionnaire document which formed the
basis of the IDRs, and he was threatened with an additional
IDR if he didn't “shut up.” Id., p.
6. Lashbrook again signed off on this decision. Id.,
Plaintiff was in segregation, he spoke with Lashbrook while
she was doing rounds and informed her that he had been
convicted on the same charge that had previously been
expunged, which she acknowledged. Id., p. 7.
Plaintiff also showed her that the toilet in his cell was
malfunctioning, that the malfunction had caused “smelly
mold” to grow on the side of the toilet, and that
Plaintiff and his cellmate were not given any cleaning
supplies. Id. Despite Lashbrook's assurance that
“all this would be taken care of, ” Plaintiff
remained in that cell for another two and a half months.
filed a grievance regarding the 409 Ticket, which led to its
expungement in June 2017, because the hearing was not
conducted in accordance with Department Rule 504.
Id., pp. 25-26.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the claims in this case into the
following two Counts:
1: Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim
against Brookman and Hart for convicting Plaintiff on the
same disciplinary charge which they had previously expunged
and for failing to provide him with adequate opportunity to
prepare by not producing the alleged document which was the
basis of the charges.
2: Eighth Amendment claim against Lashbrook for
cruel and unusual conditions of confinement.
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 theComplaint but not addressed
in this Order is considered dismissed without ...