Wright v. Vaughn

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EUGENE WRIGHT, #B09564, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) Case No. 3:22-cv-01765-RJD

)

DAVID VAUGHN, )

DEANNA BROOKHART, )

JOHN/JANE DOE (Food Supervisors), and )

ASST. WARDEN BROWN, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DALY, Magistrate Judge:

Now before the Court for a merits review is Plaintiff Eugene Wright’s First Amended

Complaint (Doc. 24). The Court is required to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out

nonmeritorious claims and must dismiss any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous,

malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1

Based on Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Doc. 1), he was allowed to proceed on the

following claims that arose during his incarceration at Lawrence Correctional Center:

Count 1: First Amendment claim against Defendant Vaughn for substantially

burdening Plaintiff’s practice of religion by denying and/or ignoring

his requests to attend religious services from April 2018 to

November 2019.

Count 2: First Amendment claim against Defendant Vaughn for substantially

burdening Plaintiff’s practice of religion by denying and/or ignoring

his requests to receive a religious diet from April 2018 to January

2022.

1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen the Complaint in light of Plaintiff’s consent to the full jurisdiction of

a Magistrate Judge, and the limited consent by the Illinois Department of Corrections to the exercise of

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between this Court and the

Illinois Department of Corrections.

Count 3: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

claim against Defendant Brookhart (in her official capacity,

injunctive relief only) for substantially burdening Plaintiff’s practice

of religion by denying and/or ignoring his requests to attend

religious services from April 2018 to November 2019.

Count 4: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

claim against Defendant Brookhart (in her official capacity,

injunctive relief only) for substantially burdening Plaintiff’s practice

of religion by denying and/or ignoring his requests to receive a

religious diet from April 2018 to January 2022.

(Doc. 17, pp. 2-4).

THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

This pleading includes identical allegations as in the original Complaint regarding

Defendant Vaughn ignoring Plaintiff’s requests to be added to the Muslim Service list and the

Jum’ah Service list between April 2018 and November 2019. (Doc. 24, p. 5). Likewise, Vaughn

did not respond to Plaintiff’s multiple requests for a religious diet until January 2022. Id. Plaintiff

now specifies that he asked for a religious Halal diet, and in January 2022 he received a religious

Kosher diet. (Doc. 24, p. 5).

Plaintiff adds new allegations that inmates were advised to send a request to Assistant

Warden Brown before the start of Ramadan2 if they wished to participate, because there was not a

chaplain at Lawrence at the time. (Doc. 24, p. 6). Plaintiff made his request to Brown. However,

the Ramadan trays did not provide sufficient portions or nutrition to meet daily caloric needs, so

Plaintiff had to rely on his personal commissary food supplies. Finally, Plaintiff never received

his tray for the Eid Al Adha. (Doc. 24, p. 6). He seeks money damages against Brown and the

Jane and/or John Doe Second Shift Food Supervisor(s) for these violations, invoking the First and

2 Ramadan in 2022 began on Saturday, April 2 and ended at sundown on Sunday, May 1, 2022.

Https://www.calendardate.com/ramadan_2022.htm.

Fourteenth Amendments and RLUIPA.

DISCUSSION

Based on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the Court adds the following

claim to the original four counts in this pro se action:3

Count 5: First Amendment claim against Defendant Brown and the John/Jane

Doe Second Shift Food Supervisor(s) for substantially burdening

Plaintiff’s practice of religion by providing inadequate food portions

during Ramadan in 2022 and failing to provide Plaintiff with a food

tray for Eid Al Adha.

Count 5

“A prisoner is entitled to practice his religion insofar as doing so does not unduly burden

the administration of the prison.” Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46, 47 (7th Cir. 1990). To state a

claim under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, a plaintiff must set forth facts

sufficient to allege that his “right to practice [his chosen religion] was burdened in a significant

way.” Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 2005).

During Ramadan, participants fast from dawn until sunset and break the fast after sunset.

Plaintiff’s claim that this religious practice was burdened by the failure to provide him with

adequate nutrition during his non-fasting hours survives merits review at this juncture. The First

Amendment claim in Count 5 may proceed against Defendant Brown and the John/Jane Doe

Defendant(s).

Plaintiff shall note that he must file a motion to substitute the actual names of the unknown

Food Supervisor(s) before they can be served with notice of this lawsuit.4

3Any claim that is mentioned in the First Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order is dismissed

without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it

does not plead “enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.”).

4 The Court observes that Plaintiff’s Exhibit at Doc. 24, p. 39, references “FSM Kohn” as having stated that

the Eid meal was provided to all Ramadan participants.

JOHN/JANE DOE DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff is responsible for conducting discovery (informal or formal) aimed at identifying

the unknown John/Jane Doe Second Shift Food Supervisor(s), in accordance with the discovery

order that will be entered by the Court. When the names of the unknown Defendant(s) are

discovered, Plaintiff must file a motion to substitute the newly identified Defendant(s) in place of

the generic designations in the case caption and throughout the Complaint.

PENDING MOTION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 19) is DENIED at this time without

prejudice. There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases. Romanelli

v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006

(7th Cir. 2006). In determining whether to recruit counsel, the Court considers two factors. See

Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s motion demonstrates that he has

satisfied the first of these, by making a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel. (Doc. 19, pp. 3-5).

However, it appears that Plaintiff is competent to litigate the case himself at this stage. See Navejar

v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013); Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 761 (7th Cir. 2010).

Plaintiff states that his education includes some college, and his pleadings are clear, well-

organized, and competently articulate his legal claims. (Doc. 19, p. 1). Further, at this early stage

of the litigation, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the need for the assistance of counsel. See

Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[U]ntil the defendants respond to the

complaint, the plaintiff’s need for assistance of counsel...cannot be gauged.”). Not all Defendants

have been served, no Defendant has answered, and a discovery schedule has not been entered.

Although the motion is denied at this juncture, Plaintiff may renew his request for counsel if

necessary, as the case progresses.

DISPOSITION

As previously ordered (Doc. 17), the First Amendment claims in Counts 1 and 2 are

proceeding against David Vaughn and the RLUIPA claims in Counts 3 and 4 are proceeding

against Deanna Brookhart, in her official capacity as the Warden of Lawrence Correctional Center.

The First Amendment claim in Count 5 survives § 1915A review and will also proceed against

Defendant Assistant Warden Brown and the John/Jane Doe Second Shift Food Supervisor(s).

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Assistant Warden Brown (individual capacity): (1)

Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6

(Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the

First Amended Complaint (Doc. 24), and this Memorandum and Order to Defendant’s place of

employment as identified by Plaintiff. If Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service

of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk

shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on the Defendant, and the Court will require

the Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

If Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the employer shall

furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, the Defendant’s

last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as directed above

or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the

Clerk and shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.

Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the First

Amended Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant

to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit

Review Order.

Plaintiff is REMINDED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court

and the opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not independently

investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer

or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay in the

transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of

prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2023

s/ Reona J. Daly _____

REONA J. DALY

United States Magistrate Judge