Jones v. Lee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JERMAINE L. JONES, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 20-4062

)

MITCHELL LEE, )

Defendant. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER

JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge:

This cause is before the Court for merit review of the Plaintiff’s complaint. The

Court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff’s complaint, and through

such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if

warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, claims Rock Island Jail Captain Mitchell Lee violated

his constitutional rights when he opened Plaintiff’s legal mail. Plaintiff says on January

10, 2020, he received a letter from the Illinois Prisoner Review Board which had already

been opened. Plaintiff filed a grievance and the Defendant responded. Defendant Lee

admitted he had opened the letter, but said “it was a mistake and it will not happen

again.” (Comp., p. 5). The response to Plaintiff’s grievance also notes “we both agreed

the letter was not specific in nature stating legal mail.” (Comp., p. 9).

The next month, Plaintiff received two letters from the United States District

Court and both were opened. Plaintiff again complained to Defendant Lee who stated

“post 8 did it on mistake.” (Comp., p. 5).

Plaintiff filed a grievance and the responding officer informed Plaintiff the two

letters were not legal mail. Instead, the officer noted both letters clearly stated they

were from the Clerk of the Court.

In accordance with Illinois County Jail Standards Section 701.180(b)(2), all

incoming, nonprivileged mail will be opened and inspected for contraband

prior to delivery. Incoming privileged mail marked LEGAL MAIL will be

in the presence of the detainee and inspected for contraband. (Comp., Grv.

Resp., p. 8).

The response also provided a copy of the applicable rules and pointed to the

section which defined privileged mail as mail from clerks of courts and the Illinois

Prisoner Review Board. (Comp., p. 8).

Plaintiff has failed to articulate a violation of his constitutional rights based on

the opening of the letters identified in his complaint. See Arbing v. Page, 1993 WL 113711,

at *2 (7th Cir. 1993)(“inmate rights are not violated when official court mail is opened

outside the presence of the inmate-recipient.”); see also Williams v. Jaimet, 2018 WL

2684470, at *5 (S.D.Ill. June 5, 2018)(“Mail between an inmate and a court generally does

not qualify as privileged legal mail, and inspection of such material outside the

presence of the inmate would not amount to a constitutional violation.”); Harrison v.

County of Cook, 2009 WL 10700356, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 18, 2009)(“mail from a court to a

prisoner does not constitute ‘legal’ mail, and may be opened outside the presence of the

inmate.”); Mann v. Green, 2006 WL 2792863, at *6 (E.D.Wis. Sept. 28 ,2006)(“Mail to an

inmate from a court, however, is not considered to be privileged mail that must be

opened in the inmate's presence.”).

The Court also notes even if the letters were considered legal mail, “’isolated

incidents of interference with legal mail’ may not state a constitutional violation

without a showing of ‘a systematic pattern or practice of interference.’” Ezebuiroh v. Doe

1, 2020 WL 2418076, at *2 (S.D.Ill. May 12, 2020), quoting Bruscino v. Carlson, 654 F. Supp.

609, 618 (S.D. Ill. 1987).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) The Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. This case

is closed. All pending motions are denied as moot. ([4], atty).

2) This dismissal shall count as one of the Plaintiff’s three allotted strikes

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The Clerk of the Court is directed to

record the Plaintiff’s strike in the three-strike log.

3) If the Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a notice of appeal

with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A

motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST set forth the issues the Plaintiff

plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the Plaintiff does

choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of

the outcome of the appeal.

Entered this 18th day of June, 2020.

s/ James E. Shadid

_________________________________________

JAMES E. SHADID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE