United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JAMES E. WALKER, Plaintiff,
NICK LAMB, GOUNS, KINK, BLAKE, JANE DOE #1, JOHN DOE #1, OFFICER LAMB, JOHN DOE #2, OFFICER SCHOON, OFFICER LIVINGSTON, and OFFICER LOY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
James E. Walker, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center
(“Lawrence”), brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) was
denied for failure to state a claim but the Court allowed
Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9).
Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint and then,
subsequently, the pending motion for leave to file (Doc. 15)
an amended complaint, because Plaintiff wanted to identify
additional defendants. The Court GRANTS that
motion (Doc. 15) and DIRECTS the Clerk to
FILE Plaintiff's Third Amended
Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed
to properly address his grievances and interfered with his
access to the courts. He asserts claims against the
defendants under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
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).
Third Amended Complaint
makes the following allegations in his Third Amended
Complaint: Plaintiff submitted a number of grievances that
were not properly handled by grievance officials. In December
2016, he submitted two grievances to the counselor box
concerning his medicine refills and property. They were
addressed to Jane Doe #1, but she did not return them to
Plaintiff. He resubmitted the grievances in January 2017, but
Jane Doe #1 denied the grievances as untimely. Her failure to
properly return and respond to the grievances prevented
Plaintiff from properly accessing the grievance process and
the court as to those potential claims.
2017, Plaintiff submitted grievances regarding missing
property. The grievance was not returned by John Doe #1,
which prevented Plaintiff from exhausting his grievances. He
informed Lamb, Gouns, Livingston, and Blake about the conduct
but they refused to correct the problem. In May 2018,
Plaintiff submitted two grievances concerning a disciplinary
report and property confiscation to John Doe #2 but he did
not return the grievances. In June 2018, he rewrote the
grievances and handed them to Lamb who informed Plaintiff
that he handed them to counselor Schoon. He did not receive
the grievances back until months later but they were denied
as out of time. He informed Lamb, Kink, Gouns, Livingston,
and Blake about John Doe #2's actions but they did not
remedy the issue.
August 2018, Plaintiff submitted four grievances regarding
damage to his television, medical co-pays, and a defective
extension cord. He received some of the grievances back but
two were not returned by Defendant Loy. Plaintiff wrote a
grievance about Loy's failure to return the grievances
and resubmitted the two grievances as exhibits. The grievance
and the attached re-submitted grievances were denied.
Plaintiff spoke with Loy about his grievances in August and
Loy located all four grievances for Plaintiff. Plaintiff
alleges that the two grievances were not returned by Loy out
of retaliation for the number of grievances that Plaintiff
filed against staff. He also wrote a grievance to Kink about
the misconduct with his missing grievances but he denied the
on the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint, the Court
finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into
the following two counts:
Count 1: Jane Doe #1, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Lamb,
Schoon, Gouns, Livingston, Blake, Kink, and Loy mishandled or
improperly responded to his grievances in violation of the
First and Fourteenth Amendment.
Count 2: Loy retaliated against Plaintiff for filing
grievances in violation of the First Amendment.
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 other claim that
is mentioned in the Complaint but not
addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed
without prejudice as inadequately pled under the
Twombly pleading standard.