United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. Rosenstengel Chief U.S. District Judge.
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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
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
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
Count 6: First Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment claim against Allard and Lynn for the mishandling