United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terrance Johnson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at
Menard Correctional Center, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges deprivations of
his constitutional rights arising from the issuance of an
Inmate Disciplinary Report and a guilty verdict by the
Adjustment Committee resulting in disciplinary segregation.
He requests a declaratory judgment and money 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. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): On
May 10, 2018, Internal Affairs conducted a shakedown of
Plaintiff's cell and he and his cellmate, Reed, were
questioned separately regarding an investigation into tobacco
trafficking. Plaintiff was questioned on whether he ever saw
Reed with any tobacco and was taken to segregation and placed
under investigation. Id. at pp. 3-4.
21, 2018, Lieutenant Dye and Corrections Officer Hughey
interviewed Plaintiff about tobacco that was found in the
North Lower Cell House. Hughey told Plaintiff that if he told
Hughey what he knew about Reed's involvement with selling
tobacco or the name of the staff member supplying the
tobacco, he would be released from segregation. Id.
at p. 5. After Plaintiff repeated that he did not know
anything about the tobacco, Dye told him that if he
“couldn't help [them], we can't help
you.” Id. at pp. 5-6.
days later, following another interview with Hughey and Dye
in which Plaintiff again stated that he did not know anything
regarding Reed's involvement with trafficking tobacco,
Plaintiff received a disciplinary report. The charged
violations in the report were supported by unknown
confidential informants, insufficient facts, and a false
statement that Plaintiff had admitted to violating state and
federal law. Id. at p. 7.
day of the disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff submitted a
written statement from another inmate named Harris to the
Adjustment Committee (“Committee”). In his
statement, Harris recanted previous claims he had made
regarding Plaintiff's involvement in tobacco possession
and stated that he, Harris, had placed the tobacco in the
gutter that was found in the North Lower Cell House.
Id. at p. 8. The Committee, composed of members
Brookman and Hart, found Plaintiff guilty of bribery and
extortion, impeding or interfering with an investigation,
drugs and drug paraphernalia, and violating state or federal
law. Id. at pp. 8, 33.
filed a grievance challenging the disciplinary report,
investigation, and disciplinary action imposed by the
Committee, but Grievance Officer Wandro and Warden Lashbrook
denied the grievance. Id. at pp. 9, 40. Plaintiff
appealed to the Administrative Review Board
(“ARB”). The ARB upheld one of the charges,
“possessing contraband -tobacco- within a penal
institution in violation of state law, ” but overturned
the other three charges due to failure to comply with
procedural due process safeguards. Id. at pp. 9, 42.
in segregation, Internal Affairs packed and stored a majority
of Plaintiff's property, depriving him of his property
for the four months he was in segregation. Id. at
pp. 9, 17. Upon release from segregation, Plaintiff received
back about half of the property that had been confiscated;
the other half was lost by Internal Affairs. Id. at
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into the
Count 1: First Amendment retaliation claim
against Dye, Hughey, and Internal Affairs Supervisor John Doe
for drafting a false disciplinary report and persuading
another inmate to submit a fabricated statement against
Plaintiff when he did not provide information in the tobacco
Count 2: Fifth Amendment claim against Dye,
Hughey, and Internal Affairs Supervisor John Doe for drafting
a false disciplinary report and persuading another inmate to
submit a fabricated statement against Plaintiff in an attempt
to compel him to give self-incriminating information during
the tobacco trafficking investigation.
Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment procedural due
process claim against Dye, Hughey, and Internal Affairs
Supervisor John Doe for filing a false disciplinary report.
Count 4: Fourteenth Amendment procedural due
process claim against Brookman, Hart, and Lashbrook for
disregarding constitutionally required procedures while
conducting the disciplinary hearing.
Count 5: Fourteenth Amendment due process
claim against Wandro, Baldwin, and Benton for affirming the
unconstitutional process used by the Adjustment Committee
during Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing and upholding the
retaliatory actions of Dye, Hughey, and Internal Affairs
Supervisor John Doe. The 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 ...