United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JAMES E. WALKER, #R02343, Plaintiff,
KIM BUTLER, RICHARD HARRINGTON, SALVADOR GODINEZ, MICHAEL SMITH, DAVID CHILDERS, R.D. MOORE, TIMOTHY MORRIS, JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. Rosenstengel Chief U.S. District Judge.
James Walker, 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. Plaintiff claims
that while at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”) officials deprived him of property
without due process of law. He seeks monetary damages and
injunctive relief. (Doc. 2, p. 1).
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: While incarcerated at Menard,
Plaintiff would receive ten dollars per month from the State
of Illinois in unassigned pay. (Doc. 1, p. 3). During
lockdowns at the facility, Menard would often withhold or
confiscate inmate's pay. Id. Despite not being
responsible for the lockdown and not receiving a hearing or
any due process procedures, Menard officials confiscated
Plaintiff's unassigned pay during a lockdown in August
2013. Id. Plaintiff filed a grievance, but the
grievance was denied by the previous Warden, Harrington, and
the previous IDOC Director, Godinez. Id.
retaliation for filing grievances, Corrections Officer Smith
selectively shook down Plaintiff's cell in November 2013,
and confiscated personal property. Id. Smith did not
record the confiscation on a shake down slip as required.
Corrections Officers Moore, Childers, and Morris knew about
the incident, but refused to take any action to correct the
wrongful taking of property without due process. Plaintiff
filed another grievance, but it also was denied by Warden
2014, corrections officers confiscated Plaintiff's
personal property on two separate occasions following shake
downs of his cell. Id. at pp. 3-4. After both shake
downs, officers did not provide him a shake down slip or
reimbursement for the value of the property taken.
Id. at p. 4.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the claims in this case into the
following three Counts:
Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Harrington, Godinez, Smith, Childers, Moore, Morris, John Doe
1, and John Doe 2 for the deprivation of Plaintiff's
personal property without due process of law in November
2013, April 2014, and September 2014 following the shakedown
of his cell.
Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Harrington and Godinez for the confiscation of
Plaintiff's unassigned pay without due process of law
during the lockdown at Menard in August 2013.
Count 3: First Amendment claim against Smith
for selectively shaking down Plaintiff's cell in November
2013 in retaliation for Plaintiff filing grievances.
Count 4: Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Harrington, Godinez, and Butler for denying Plaintiff's
grievances regarding the confiscation of his property without
due process of law.
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 ...