Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Boyd v. Sheffler

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 20, 2019

JIMMY BOYD, #K68647, Plaintiff,


          Nancy J. Rosenstengel Chief U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Jimmy Boyd, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center (“Centralia”), brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights while he was at Western Illinois Correctional Center (“Western”) and Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”). Boyd claims that he has been retaliated against at both facilities. He seeks a preliminary injunction and monetary damages.

         The Court must review the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court must also consider whether any claims are improperly joined and subject to severance or dismissal. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).


         In the Complaint, Boyd alleges the following: While at Western he was retaliated against by Defendants for filing grievances and a habeas corpus petition. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). On February 13, 2018, Sheffler escorted Boyd from the health care unit to the segregation unit, without allowing medical staff to first provide him treatment. (Id. at p. 5). Boyd was placed in segregation based on a falsified disciplinary ticket, charging him with the possession of a razor blade, which was placed in his pants by Smith. (Id. at p. 6). Boyd claims that Sheffler and Smith committed these acts in order to confiscate his legal documents and prevent him from filing grievances. (Id.). While in segregation, his requests for medical attention were ignored by Smith, Durell, and Crary. (Id. at p. 9).

         Boyd filed an emergency grievance regarding the retaliatory conduct, and the grievance was expedited by the chief administrative officer. (Id. at p. 6). Goins delayed the process by 32 days, however, and determined that the grievance was moot because the adjustment committee had expunged the disciplinary ticket. (Id.). He also filed a grievance regarding his lack of medical treatment, but Goins ignored and deliberately failed to address his medical issues. (Id. at p. 9).

         Sheffler, Smith, Crary, and Durell are in possession of his legal documents and have frustrated the process of his federal habeas corpus case to the point that it has been dismissed. (Id. at p. 7).

         At some point Boyd was transferred to Shawnee. At Shawnee, Allard and Lynn retaliated against him by ignoring his emergency grievances. Boyd was given a job assignment, but due to false allegations, he was removed from the assignment. (Id. at p. 8).


         Boyd claims that Baylor, a member of the Administrative Review Board, and Baldwin, IDOC's Acting Director, deliberately failed “to curb and/or correct the retaliatory actions being taken against” him. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Section 1983 liability, however, requires personal responsibility for the deprivation of a constitutional right. A defendant cannot be liable solely because he has a supervisory role or because he processed or reviewed a grievance. See Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001); Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2017). Because Boyd does not allege any facts describing personal involvement in the constitutional violates on the part of Baldwin and Baylor, these Defendants shall be dismissed.


         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following six Counts:

Count 1: First Amendment retaliation claim against Sheffler, Smith, Goins, Crary, and Durell for retaliating against Boyd for filing a habeas petition and inmate grievances.
Count 2: First Amendment access to courts claim against Sheffler, Smith, Crary, and Durell for withholding Boyd's legal documents causing his federal habeas corpus petition to be dismissed.
Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Goins and Crary for the mishandling of Boyd's grievances.
Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Sheffler, Smith, Durell, Crary, and Goins for ignoring Boyd's requests for medical attention.
Count 5: First Amendment retaliation claim against Allard and Lynn for failing to process Boyd's emergency grievance.
Count 6: First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claim against Allard and Lynn for the mishandling of ...

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.