# Smith v. Dodd

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · July 11, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155226

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** July 11, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155226

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ANTHONY SMITH, N22143, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
RACHELL DODD, ) Case No. 22-cv-1013-DWD
J. CAYWOOD, )
MRS. CLARK, )
MR. HILL, )
NICHOLE DUNLAP. )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:
On May 23, 2022, Plaintiff Anthony Smith, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC), was directed to file an amended complaint because his original
complaint failed to state a claim. Plaintiff’s amended complaint concerns various issues
and conditions of confinement at Robinson Correctional Center (Robinson). (Doc. 12).
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Plaintiff has also filed numerous “motions” and
documents that appear to be attempts to add exhibits or allegations to his amended
complaint. (Docs. 14-20).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 12) is now before the Court for preliminary
review 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)-
(b). 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). 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 Complaint and Amended Complaint
Plaintiff alleges that from approximately June 7, 2021, to April 27, 2022, he was
denied access to extra boxers, socks, t-shirts, and towels. (Doc. 1 at 10). Upon arrival at
Robinson, he was issued one set of blue pants and a shirt that were used. He followed

the proper procedures to request new or additional clothing, but his requests were
denied. He was also prevented from buying many additional supplies from the
commissary because he was often told that items were out of stock. He further alleges
that the clothing he brought with him to Robinson during his transfer from Dixon
Correctional Center had become so worn that it was threadbare and see-through.

Plaintiff alleges that he is being treated as less than an animal, and he is embarrassed by
his clothing. Plaintiff claims that normally when an inmate transfers to a new facility, he
is given all new items including a blue uniform, boxers, socks, t-shirts, towels, bedding,
and shoes. (Doc. 1 at 14).
In the original complaint, Plaintiff’s focal point was his claim that he was being

denied adequate clothing and towels. (Doc. 1 at 10-14). He also made broad allegations
that his grievances have been delayed or ignored, the Robinson commissary has unethical
practices, and there is retaliation and discrimination against individuals of color. (Doc. 1
at 11). He alleged that he had been denied adequate access to the law library because it
lacked many materials and there are not regular library hours. (Doc. 1 at 14). He
suggested that he has been discriminated against based on his disability, which has made

it difficult to get job assignments or education. (Id.). In reviewing the complaint, the
Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim both because he did not specifically
link the alleged wrongs to individual actors, and because a desire for new clothing does
not amount to a constitutional violation. (Doc. 9).
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff sought to remove some of the original
defendants, and he added others. He then included a discussion of each defendant, with

exhibits interspersed. He indicated that one grievance had been fully exhausted, but
others were still being processed. (Doc. 12 at 6).
Starting with Defendant Dodd, the Warden, Plaintiff alleges that she has violated
his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to remediate the issues he grieved concerning
access to clothing. He suggests that additional pain was inflicted upon him as a disabled

individual. Plaintiff alleges that by signing grievances, Dodd has complied with other
staff members who violated his rights. (Doc. 12 at 12).
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Caywood is most responsible for the whole
situation because he could have just provided Plaintiff with requested items, and the
whole situation would have been avoided. (Doc. 12 at 13). In response to a grievance,

Caywood advised Plaintiff that every nine months inmates could request new items, and
he suggested Plaintiff need only follow that procedure. Plaintiff characterizes Caywood’s
treatment of the situation as intentional mental abuse, and he alleges that Caywood
denied him the opportunity to provide for himself. Plaintiff additionally claims that
Caywood oversees the commissary department. He alleges at great length that the
commissary commits frequent price gouging. He suggests the problems with the

commissary are widespread, and that if investigated, many wrongs would be uncovered.
(Doc. 12 at 15).
Turning to Defendant Clark, Plaintiff alleges that she makes frequent errors while
working commissary, and she pressures inmates to accept the errors by hurrying through
transactions or being confrontational. (Doc. 12 at 15-16). As an example of the alleged
problems, Plaintiff supplied copies of multiple commissary receipts, and he alleges that

on one occasion he was charged more than $5 for oatmeal cream pies, when the cost
should have been $3.29. (Doc. 12 at 19-23). He attached a grievance about the issue,
which is apparently still pending. (Doc. 12 at 17-18). He alleges that he has asked
Caywood and others about the grievances, but he has not heard back. (Doc. 12 at 16).
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Hill, the director of the dietary department, has

violated his rights because he apparently changed the work contract for dietary workers
such that rather than signing it before a 90-day stint of work, workers were asked to sign
a contract after working a 90-day stint. (Doc. 12 at 24). Plaintiff claims that this practice
is unfair because the conditions of being a dietary worker could be changed without an
inmate knowing. As a result of the issue, Plaintiff alleges he quit the job. He provided

support in the form of a disciplinary report which is hard to read but suggests he refused
to continue reporting to work. (Doc. 12 at 25).
As to Defendant Dunlap, Plaintiff claims that she is an inadequate law library
supervisor because she does not always provide correct or complete forms, she is often
absent, she does not maintain up-to-date resources, and when asked about inadequacies
she defers to Springfield. (Doc. 12 at 26-27). He claims that as a result, he is unable to

fully litigate his case.
Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation of an unspecified amount. (Doc. 1 at 16).
Analysis
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is insufficient as pled. As to any claims related to
the deprivation of clothing—against Defendants Dodd and Caywood—Plaintiff has
failed to state an adequate claim because as the Court previously explained, allegations

that Plaintiff wished for additional sets of clothing, or that he wanted new clothing, are
not sufficient to state a claim for harmful conditions of confinement. See e.g. Myrick v.
Anglin, 496 Fed. Appx. 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2012) (denial of new clothing or showers that did
not exacerbate medical conditions was not unconstitutional); Windsor v. Ind. Dept. of Corr.,
2022 WL 857034 at *2 (N.D. Ind. 2022) (noting that infrequent clothing exchanges do not

implicate constitutional concerns where inmate has the ability to wash the clothes he has);
Stanton v. Galipeau, 2021 WL 1723047 at *1 (N.D. Ind. 2021) (finding that inability to
change clothes coupled with lack of access to showers to clean, and unsanitary cells may
state a claim); Hardy v. Rauner, 2018 WL 1904288 at *7-8 (S.D. Ill. 2018) (finding that
infrequent clothing exchanges and holes in existing clothing did not constitute an Eighth

Amendment claim). Plaintiff’s factual allegations tend to suggest that he wanted new
clothes, but not that he needed new clothes or that he was suffering some ill side-effect
based on the lack of access to extra clothing. Plaintiff claims that he is humiliated by the
clothing situation, but again, he does not describe any physical ailment caused by the
situation. Plaintiff’s allegations about clothing are less detailed in his amended complaint
than they were in the original, and even in the original complaint Plaintiff failed to state

a claim based on the clothing issue.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegation that Dodd is responsible merely because she
oversees the facility would not be sufficient even if he had a claim based on access to
clothing. There is no supervisory liability under § 1983, so to state a valid claim, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that the supervisor did more than passively approve a grievance or
acquiesce to conduct. A plaintiff must demonstrate that the supervisor knowingly and

intentionally caused or condoned a constitutional harm. Plaintiff alleges only that Dodd
signed a grievance and by being the supervisor she was compliant with her employees’
conduct. An allegation of this nature is not sufficient under § 1983, so the claim against
Dodd could also be dismissed on this basis.
Turning to Plaintiff’s claims about the commissary that he raised against

Defendants Caywood and Clark, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim because there is no
right to commissary under federal law. See Animashaun v. Keefe Commissary Network, 2013
WL 3321863 *1, *2 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (“[Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to
purchase commissary items, [and] he has no federally protected right to purchase
commissary items at a particular price or to have the jail restrained from charging

exorbitant prices.”) Accordingly, there is no claim against Caywood or Clark related to
commissary.
As to Plaintiff’s claims about the employer-employee contract that governs work
in the dietary area of the prison, Plaintiff’s allegations do not align with any of the
common theories of relief under § 1983. Prison inmates do not have a constitutional right
to any form of prison employment, so Plaintiff has not stated a claim by alleging that he

was forced to resign his prison job after the contractual arrangement for the job changed.
See, e.g. Harris v. Greer, 750 F.2d 617, 618 (7th Cir. 1984) (an inmate has no constitutional
right to a job of his choice). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Hill and Dodd have violated
his rights by allowing a change of the contractual process that has employees sign a
contract at the end of 90 days of work, rather than at the outset. This factual allegation
does not state a claim under federal law, so this claim is dismissed.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Dunlap has violated his rights by denying
him access to an adequate law library based on a list of deficiencies, such as not always
providing the correct form, or lacking current materials. As the Supreme Court explained
in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996), there is no “abstract freestanding right to a law
library…[and] an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing

that his prison’s law library…is subpar in some theoretical sense.” To establish a
deprivation of access to the Courts, a plaintiff must show “that as a result of the prison’s
action the plaintiff had lost a case or suffered some other legal setback.” Pratt v. Tarr, 464
F.3d 730, 732 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff’s allegations about the law library exhibit a
dissatisfaction, but they do not amount to an actual deprivation of access to the Courts.

To state an adequate claim related to a law library, a plaintiff must at least give minimal
detail about prejudice he suffered. Pratt, 464 F.3d at 732. Here, Plaintiff has not clearly
suggested prejudice. At most, he alleges that on one occasion he sought a blank civil
rights complaint form, but the librarian first gave him a habeas form, and apparently later
copied a form from another inmate. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on a civil rights form,
and it is not apparent that the lack of access to materials prevented him from pursuing

this case or other litigation. Plaintiff’s lack of success in this case is not caused by a lack
of reference to the law, rather the dismissal of this case is occasioned by the fact that
Plaintiff’s allegations do not amount to a harm under federal law.
In addition to the amended complaint, the Court reviewed the four additional
motions (Docs. 16, 17, 19, and 20) and one notice (Doc. 18) that Plaintiff has filed in the
last month. The motions are random documents that Plaintiff seeks to add as exhibits to

supplement his claims. The documents do not alter the analysis above, so the “motions”
will be denied.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s entire complaint
for failure to state a claim. Although pro se plaintiffs are sometimes given chances to
amend, the Court will not give Plaintiff another chance to amend because it would be

fruitless. See Always Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2 F.4th 695, 707 (7th Cir.
2021) (courts may deny leave to amend if an amendment would be futile); McCree v.
Grissom, 657 F.3d 623, 624 (7th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend shall be granted where justice
so requires, but leave to amend need not be given if an amendment to the complaint
would be futile). The amended complaint contains less detail about the original access to

clothing claims than the original complaint did. As for the other issues presented about
commissary and the law library, it appears that Plaintiff has admitted that he has not yet
completed the exhaustion of administrative remedies about these issues, making this
lawsuit premature. See Chambers v. Sood, 956 F.3d 979, 984 (7th Cir. 2020) (a “sue first,
exhaust later” approach is not acceptable, any lawsuit filed before exhaustion is
completed is premature and must be dismissed without prejudice). Plaintiff does not

mention exhaustion of the employment related claim. Even if he had exhausted
remedies, the issues Plaintiff describes do not amount to a violation of the constitution.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Motion for Recruitment of Counsel
In the Second Motion for Counsel, Plaintiff plainly states that he is eligible for
counsel. (Doc. 13). As the Court previously explained, Civil litigants do not have a

constitutional or statutory right to counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007);
Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). The Court previously explained that
Plaintiff had not taken steps to demonstrate a need for counsel, nor had he shown efforts
on his own behalf to seek counsel. The second motion does not remedy this issue, so it is
DENIED.

Disposition
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) is DISMISSED for failure to state a
claim. Plaintiff’s pending Motions (Docs. 16, 17, 19, 20) are DENIED. Plaintiff’s Second
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 13) is also DENIED. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to enter judgment and to close this case.

If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this Order, he must file a notice of appeal with this
Court within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). If Plaintiff
chooses to appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 filing fee irrespective of the outcome
of the appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d
724, 725-56 (7th Cir. 2008). Moreover, if the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff
may incur another “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A proper and timely motion filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline.
Feb. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no later than 28 days after the
entry of judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2022 U L. “

DAVIDW.DUGAN
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155226. Public record. Not legal advice.