United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
KING MICHAEL OLIVER, also known as MICHAEL OLIVER, Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michael Oliver, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center, brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
deprivations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff claims
IDOC has violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment and retaliated against him for filing grievances in
violation of the First Amendment. He seeks monetary damages,
injunctive relief, and his immediate release from prison.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint 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).
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Complaint:
On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff was falsely charged with
trespassing and threatening a public official, and was placed
in Jackson County Jail. (Doc. 1, p. 2). As a result of his
false arrest, IDOC issued a warrant and Plaintiff was
arrested on either April 24 or 25, 2019 and placed in
IDOC's custody. The issuance of the warrant violated
Plaintiff's presumption of innocence, violated his due
process rights, and deprived him of a right to a fair trial.
(Id. at pp. 3 and 5).
retaliation for filing grievances, Plaintiff has been placed
in segregation, attacked in his sleep by an officer, and
denied proper medical treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 3). He has made
repeated requests for a fan but has not been provided with
one. Plaintiff will not file a grievance regarding the fan as
he believes that filing grievances will bring more
initial matter, this Court must consider the substance of
Plaintiff's claims to determine if the correct statute is
being invoked (in this case, 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Godoski v. United States, 304 F.3d 761, 763 (7th
Cir. 2002); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973) (dismissing Section 1983 claims that should have been
brought as petitions for writ of habeas corpus). A petition
for a writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle “[i]f
the prisoner is seeking what can fairly be described as a
quantum change in the level of custody-whether outright
freedom, or freedom subject to the limited reporting and
financial constraints of bond or parole or probation.”
v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991). If a
prisoner “is seeking a different program or location or
environment, then he is challenging the conditions rather
than the fact of confinement and his remedy is under civil
rights law.” Id.; see also Pischke v.
Litscher, 178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 1999).
respect to his due process claim against IDOC, Plaintiff
alleges that he is being improperly held and seeks immediate
release and placement on parole. (Doc. 1, pp. 3 and 5). To
the extent he challenges the fact of his confinement and
seeks immediate release, Plaintiff has a single federal
remedy; a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500. Section 1983 provides him
with no avenue to this relief. Therefore, he cannot pursue
his request for immediate release in this action.
extent Plaintiff claims he is being retaliated against for
filing grievances while in IDOC custody, he cannot pursue his
suit against IDOC because it is a state agency.
“Neither a State nor its officials acting in their
official capacities are ‘persons' under §
1983.” Will v. Mich. Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). See also Wynn v.
Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir.2001) (Eleventh
Amendment bars suits against states in federal court for
money damages); Billman v. Ind. Dep't of Corr.,
56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir.1995) (state Department of
Corrections is immune from suit by virtue of Eleventh
§ 1983 “creates a cause of action based on
personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus liability
does not attach unless the individual defendant caused or
participated in a constitutional violation.” Vance
v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). To state a
claim, Plaintiff must specifically identify the individual,
by name or Doe designation. See Bell Atlantic Corp.,
550 U.S. at 555; Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff does
not associate any particular individual with his allegations
of retaliation. This is insufficient to state a viable claim.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007).
Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Preliminary Injunction with
his Complaint (Doc. 3). Injunctions are extraordinary
equitable remedies that are to be granted in civil cases only
when specific criteria are clearly met by the movant.
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). As
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a ...