Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Enelage

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

September 16, 2019

MICHAEL SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
J. ENELAGE, P. HAITHCOCK-DUKES, N. SANDERS, FRANK LAWRENCE, C. MEYER, JOHN DOE REVIEWING OFFICER, E. CARTER, JOSHUA A. SCHOENBECK, and JASON N. HART, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Nancy J. Rosenstengel Chief U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Michael Smith, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the defendants violated his due process rights and retaliated against him by issuing and finding him guilty of a false disciplinary ticket. He asserts claims against the defendants under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

         This 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).

         The Complaint

         In his Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations: On March 14, 2019 while going to the dining hall, Plaintiff was approached by Defendants J. Engelage, P. Haithcock-Dukes, and N. Sanders and asked about the location of his “line movement” partner. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Plaintiff stated that his partner was turned around by guards, but he did not know why and had no control over his partner. Haithcock-Dukes and Sanders commented that Plaintiff was mouthy and liked to sue and Engelage ordered Plaintiff to turn around and cuff up. (Id.). Plaintiff was placed in mechanical wrist restraints despite having an active double cuff permit and requesting to be placed in proper restraints. (Id. at pp. 11, 14, and 23).

         Plaintiff was placed in a segregation cell. Although he requested his dinner meal from the three officers, he did not receive dinner and had to wait until the next meal to eat. The officers placed him in a segregation cell that did not have a blanket, mattress, pillow, hygiene bag, or running water. (Id. at pp. 11, 24). Plaintiff wrote several grievances about his conditions but did not receive a response. Frank Lawrence and C. Meyer ignored his grievances and he remained in the cell until March 20, 2019. (Id. at pp. 12-13, 23). Plaintiff later alleges that Lawrence deemed the grievances non-emergencies and failed to release him from segregation. (Id. at p. 13). He alleges that C. Meyer retaliated against him when she chose to only process some of his grievances and purposefully mishandled others which also violated his due process rights. (Id. at p. 20). He also alleges that Lawrence retaliated against him by deeming his grievances non-emergencies. (Id. at p. 16). He wrote numerous grievances about his conditions of confinement which he alleges is the basis for the retaliation. (Id. at p. 17).

         On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff received a disciplinary report listing Engelage as the reporting officer and Haithcock-Dukes and Sanders as witnesses. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Plaintiff requested video/camera footage of the incident in advance of the hearing. Plaintiff contends that the disciplinary report issued by Engelage, Hathcock-Dukes, and Sanders was false and issued in retaliation for Plaintiff responding that he did not have control over his line partner and that he needed to be cuffed according to his permit. (Id. at pp. 12, 14). He also alleges that he was denied his dinner meal in retaliation for his previous statements to the defendants. (Id. at p. 14).

         At the March 19, 2019 disciplinary hearing, the John Doe Hearing Officer allegedly denied Plaintiff his due process rights by not allowing Plaintiff to appear and address the charges against him. (Doc. 1, pp. 14-15). Joshua Schoenbeck and Jason N. Hart, members of the adjustment committee, failed to review the camera footage and allowed the footage to be destroyed. (Id.). They also did not allow Plaintiff the opportunity to have staff assistance, call three witnesses, and denied his request for an extension of time to prepare for the hearing. (Id. at pp. 15, 25). Plaintiff alleges that Schoenbeck and Hart retaliated against him because they had in their possession his grievances when they made their final ruling and refused to call his witnesses. (Id. at pp. 15-16). Lawrence signed the final report of the adjustment committee, finding Plaintiff guilty. (Id. at p. 16). C. Meyer and E. Carter also denied his grievance related to the disciplinary procedures, which he alleges violated his due process rights. (Id. at p. 15). As a result of the disciplinary ticket, Plaintiff was placed on C Grade and lost two months commissary privileges. (Doc. 2, p. 3).

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into the following eight counts:

Count 1: J. Engelage, P. Haithcock-Dukes, and N. Sanders retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment by writing Plaintiff a false disciplinary ticket, denying him his evening meal, and refusing to double cuff Plaintiff.
Count 2: J. Engelage, P. Haithcock-Dukes, N. Sanders, C. Meyer, and Frank Lawrence were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment to Plaintiff's conditions of confinement while in segregation.
Count 3: J. Engelage, P. Haithcock-Dukes, and N. Sanders were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment to Plaintiff's serious medical needs by refusing to comply with Plaintiff's medical cuff permit.
Count 4: J. Engelage, P. Haithcock-Dukes, and N. Sanders violated Plaintiff's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by issuing Plaintiff a false disciplinary ticket.
Count 5: John Doe Reviewing Officer, Joshua Schoenbeck, Jason Hart, and Frank Lawrence violated Plaintiff's due process rights by denying him access to video evidence and denying his ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.