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.

Walker v. Smith

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 4, 2019

JAMES E. WALKER, #R02343, Plaintiff,
v.
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

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff 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.

         Following an initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on the following claim:

Count 3: First Amendment claim against Smith for selectively shaking down Plaintiff's cell in November 2013 in retaliation for Plaintiff filing grievances.

         Pursuant 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).

         Amended Complaint

         Federal 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, [1] the Court will screen the proposed Amended Complaint in conjunction with its consideration of Plaintiff's Motion.

         In the 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.

         Wardens 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.

         Upon 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.

         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 theAmended Complaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed ...


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.