United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
WILLIAM W. BISHOP, III, Plaintiff,
C/O JOHNSON, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
William W. Bishop, III, an inmate of the Illinois Department
of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for alleged deprivations of
his constitutional rights. 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).
makes the following allegations in his Complaint: On May 29,
2019, C/O Johnson instructed inmates in Plaintiff's row
of the commissary to dump their trays. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff took an alternative route through empty tables to
get to the back of the line because the line was backed up.
While waiting in line, a fellow inmate said hi and Plaintiff
replied to the inmate. After dumping his tray, Johnson
approached Plaintiff and asked him what he was doing.
Plaintiff replied that he dumped his tray and said hi to a
friend. Johnson responded, “you can't do that shit,
I could write you up for an STG, I could make something up,
and take you to seg for no reason.” (Id.).
Plaintiff wrote a grievance about Johnson's actions. One
week later, Johnson approached Plaintiff as he was leaving
his cell for dinner. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff was tucking in
his shirt and Johnson asked if he was dumb and deaf and told
Plaintiff to lock up. He also took Plaintiff's meal away
allegations fail to state a claim. Plaintiff's Complaint
suggests that C/O Johnson threatened him on one occasion and
took his meal away from him on another occasion. DeWalt
v. Carter 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (verbal
harassment alone does not amount to cruel and unusual
punishment); Dobbey v. Illinois Dept. of
Corrections, 574 F.3d 443, 446 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“[H]arassment, while regrettable, is not what comes to
mind when one thinks of ‘cruel and unusual'
punishment.”). Further, the withholding of a meal on a
single occasion does not, in and of itself, violate the
Eighth Amendment. See Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849,
853 (7th Cir. 1999). Although Plaintiff indicates that he
filed a grievance against Johnson, he does not allege that
Johnson took his meal away from him in retaliation.
to the extent Plaintiff seeks the restoration of his good
time credits as part of his request for relief, he has a
single federal remedy available to him; a petition for writ
of habeas corpus. Whitlock v. Johnson, 153 F.3d 380,
389 (7th Cir. 1998); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
480-81, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Section 1983
provides him with no avenue to this relief.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
is GRANTED leave to file a “First
Amended Complaint” on or before JANUARY 6,
2020. Should Plaintiff fail to file his First
Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent with
the instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case
shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with
a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his claims.
Fed. R. App. P. 41(b). See generally Ladien v.
Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v.
Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). The dismissal shall count as one of
Plaintiff's three allotted “strikes” under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original
complaint, rendering the original complaint void. See
Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d
632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept
piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint. Thus, the
First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without
reference to any previous pleading, and Plaintiff must
re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along
with the First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint
is subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
is further ADVISED that his obligation to
pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time
the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and
payable, regardless of whether Plaintiff elects to file a
First Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467
(7th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a
continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each
opposing party informed of any change in his address; the
Court will not independently investigate his whereabouts.
This shall be done in writing and not later than 7
days after a transfer or other change in address
occurs. Failure to comply with this Order will cause a delay
in the transmission of court documents and may result in
dismissal of this action for want of prosecution.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank
civil rights complaint form for use in ...