United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge.
Antonio Speed is a former federal inmate at the United States
Penitentiary located in Marion, Illinois
(“USP-Marion”). He filed this pro se
action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in order to challenge his
placement in USP-Marion's Prison Camp on due process
grounds. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-22). He seeks money damages.
(Id. at p. 7).
Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to
screen prisoner complaints and filter out nonmeritorious
claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is required to
dismiss any portion of the Complaint that is legally
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or
seeks money damages from a defendant who is immune from
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the
factual allegations in the pro se Complaint are
liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
statement of claim consists of the following single
My constitutional rights were violated by the administration
of Marion USP Prison Camp when it forced me to become a
participant in their sanctions without a report and hearing
programs upon my arrival at Marion USP Prison Camp 9118.
(Doc. 1, p. 6). In his request for relief, Plaintiff cites
violations of his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
(Id. at p. 7). The Complaint includes various
marked-up exhibits, such as a copy of his Inmate Rights and
Responsibilities (Id. at p. 10), a Program Statement
for the Inmate Discipline Program (Id. at pp.
11-13), and memoranda from Warden True (Id. at pp.
14-16), among other documents. Plaintiff fails to explain why
he submitted these exhibits. (Id. at pp. 1-21).
on the allegation in the Complaint, the Court designates a
single count in this pro se action:
Count 1: Defendants violated Plaintiff's
Fifth Amendment right to due process of law by placing him in
USP-Marion's Prison Camp without notice or a hearing.
parties and the Court will use this designation in all future
pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial
officer of this Court. Any claim that is encompassed by the
allegations in the Complaint but not addressed herein is
considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled
one-sentence allegation falls woefully short of the pleading
standards described in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Twombly. He omits reference to the
defendants and to the acts or omissions that support his
claim against them. Rule 8(a) requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Plaintiff's allegation is too
short and too vague. The Complaint must set forth sufficient
facts to give each defendant “fair notice of what the .
. . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570 (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Plaintiff
has not set forth enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face. Id. As such, the
Complaint does not survive screening.
Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process claim against the
defendants is likely foreclosed by the Supreme Court's
decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 U.S. 1843 (2017).
In Ziglar, the Supreme Court held that federal
courts should not expand Bivens into contexts not
officially recognized by the Supreme Court, unless certain
“special factors” counsel otherwise.
Ziglar, 137 U.S. at 1859-60. The Court cited only
three instances in which a Bivens remedy should be
recognized against federal officials: (1) Fourth Amendment
claims involving unlawful searches and seizures; (2) Fifth
Amendment due process claims involving gender discrimination;
and (3) Eighth Amendment claims for inadequate medical
treatment. Ziglar, 137 U.S. at 1854-55. Count 1 does
not fit into any of these categories. See Goree v.
Serio, 735 Fed.Appx. 894 (7th Cir. 2018) (claims
premised on due process violations arising from
administrative and disciplinary proceedings not cognizable
under Bivens and were properly dismissed at
light of the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
Complaint does not survive screening and shall be dismissed
without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims
any further, he may file an amended complaint. However,
Plaintiff is WARNED that his failure to
comply with the below deadline and instructions will result
in dismissal of this action with prejudice and the ...