United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JAMES E. WALKER, #R02343, Plaintiff,
MICHAEL SMITH, KIM BUTLER, RICHARD HARRINGTON, SALVADOR GODINEZ, DAVID CHILDERS, R.D. MOORE, TIMOTHY MORRIS, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, and JANE DOE 1. 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.
Plaintiff claims that while at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”) on multiple occasions his cell was
shaken down and his property was confiscated in retaliation
for filing grievances.
an initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on the
Count 3: First Amendment claim against Smith for
selectively shaking down Plaintiff's cell in November
2013 in retaliation for Plaintiff filing grievances.
to the Initial Scheduling and Discovery Order, Plaintiff had
until November 27, 2019, to file a motion for leave to amend
the complaint to include any additional claims or parties.
(Doc. 20, p. 3). On October 3, 2019, he filed a Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 24), which was
denied without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 10. (Doc. 28). Plaintiff filed a second Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint and submitted a proposed
amended complaint to the Court on November 15, 2019.
Defendant Smith did not file a response to Plaintiff's
motion. The Court now considers Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 30).
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend
should be freely given when justice so requires.
Plaintiff's motion is timely and complies with Local Rule
15.1. As the Amended Complaint is also subject to review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,  the Court will screen the
proposed Amended Complaint in conjunction with its
consideration of Plaintiff's Motion.
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again brings claims of
retaliation against Defendant Smith. He also alleges the
following: Corrections Officers Moore and Morris, along with
Smith, in November 2013, selectively shook down
Plaintiff's cell and ordered him to the shower to be
stripped searched in retaliation for filing grievances.
Lieutenant Childers supervised the shakedown. Plaintiff
notified Childers about the confiscation of his property and
the retaliation by Officers Smith and Moore, but Childers
refused to correct the wrongful acts. In April 2014, his cell
was shaken down and property taken by John Doe 1 and in
September 2014, his cell was searched by John Doe 2 and more
property was taken. On both occasions these shakedowns were
done in retaliation, he was not provided a shakedown slip,
and he was not reimbursed for the value of the property.
Butler and Harrington were aware of the retaliatory conduct
because of the multiple grievances filed and letters written
by Plaintiff. Jane Doe 1 denied some grievances and never
responded to others regarding the shakedowns and the wrongful
taking of his property in retaliation for Plaintiff's
history of filing grievances.
review of the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that
Plaintiff has pleaded the following claims:
Count 1: First Amendment claim against Godinez,
Butler, Harrington, Smith, Moore, Childers, Morris, John Doe
1, John Doe 2, and Jane Doe 1 for retaliating against
Plaintiff for filing grievances.
Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Defendants for the deprivation of Plaintiff's personal
property without due process of law.
Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Harrington, Godinez, Butler, and Jane Doe 1 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 theAmended Complaint but not
addressed in this Order is considered dismissed