Jones v. Brookhart

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ARTHUR JONES, #M00855, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-01993-SMY

)

DEANNA BROOKHART, )

KEVIN JOHNSON, and )

JEREMIAH BROWN, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Arthur Jones, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections and currently

incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for due process violations arising from an allegedly false disciplinary ticket he received at

Lawrence Correctional Center. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-33). He seeks declaratory, monetary, and injunctive

relief.1 Id. at 11. This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires this Court to dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous

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

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).

The Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 1-8): During his

incarceration at Henry Hill Correctional Center, Plaintiff was violently attacked and stabbed by

members of the Latin Kings on October 7, 2021. Id. at 5. He was treated in the prison’s infirmary

1 Plaintiff asks that his ticket be expunged. (Doc. 1, p. 11).

afterwards. He filed a separate civil rights action to address constitutional claims stemming from

the attack. Id. at 4 (citing Jones v. Brannon, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04105-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill.

filed June 29, 2022)).

Following his release from Hill’s infirmary, Plaintiff transferred to Lawrence Correctional

Center where he was placed in restrictive housing on investigative status. Id. at 5. The

investigation concluded on October 12, 2021, and Plaintiff received a disciplinary ticket for

fighting and causing a dangerous disturbance on October 18, 2021. Plaintiff immediately

requested access to Hill’s camera footage of the fight and the names of all confidential sources

mentioned in the incident report. That evening, he submitted this request in writing to the

following officials at Lawrence, among others: Lieutenant Puckett (internal affairs), Lieutenant

Johnson (adjustment committee member), and Deanna Brookhart (warden). Id.

At the prison disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff was denied his right to due process of law when

he was not allowed to present camera footage or call the confidential informants as witnesses. He

informed members of the adjustment committee, Lieutenant Kevin Johnson and Hearing Officer

Jeremiah Brown, that he was innocent. He also claimed that Roy Little (Hill’s internal affairs

officer) was responsible for the false charges. He requested a continuance of the hearing until he

could obtain the camera footage and witness names. In response, Johnson and Brown told Plaintiff

that he would receive something in the mail. Id. at 6.

Instead of a second hearing, Plaintiff received the adjustment committee’s final hearing

summary and report in the mail. Id. at 22-23. He was found guilty of fighting and causing a

dangerous disturbance and punished with 3 months of C-grade and segregation. Id. He now

challenges the ticket on Fourteenth Amendment due process grounds and asks the Court to

expunge it. Id. at 11.

Preliminary Dismissals

Plaintiff mentions certain individuals in the statement of his claim who are not identified

as defendants, including: Lieutenant Puckett and Roy Little. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a)

requires a plaintiff to name all parties in the case caption. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d

551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005). Because these individuals are not named as defendants, they are not

considered parties, and all claims against them are considered DISMISSED without prejudice.

Discussion

Based on the allegations, the Court designates the following claim in the Complaint:

Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for denying Plaintiff a

protected liberty interest without due process of law by punishing him with

3 months of segregation and C-grade on false disciplinary charges for

fighting and causing a dangerous disturbance at Hill in October 2021.

Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered

dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.2

The Fourteenth Amendment guards against deprivations of constitutionally protected

interests in “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S.

113, 125 (1990). When presented with a due process claim arising in the context of a prison

disciplinary hearing, the court considers, first, whether there was a protected interest at stake that

necessitated due process protections, and, second, whether the disciplinary hearing was conducted

in accordance with procedural due process requirements. Id.

Plaintiff’s allegations address only the second component of this claim. His allegations are

insufficient however to implicate a protected liberty interest. Plaintiff’s “Final Summary Report,”

which is included as an exhibit, lists 3 months of segregation and C-grade as the punishment. (Doc.

2 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 to relief that is plausible on its face”).

1, pp. 22-23). When a plaintiff is punished with a short term of segregation, no inquiry into the

specific conditions is necessary. Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d 754, 761 (7th Cir. 1997) (70 days);

Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 612 (7th Cir. 2005) (56 day); Marion v. Columbia Corr. Inst., 559

F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009) (240 days); Beamon v. Pollard, 711 F. App’x 794, 795 (7th Cir.

2018) (120 days). Plaintiff’s punishment with 90 days of segregation is considered short in this

context. For longer terms of segregation, the Court considers whether the plaintiff endured an

“atypical and significant hardship.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). But, Plaintiff

does not address the conditions he encountered in segregation. He complains about his demotion

to C-grade status, but this demotion in his status does not give rise to a protected liberty interest or

trigger his right to due process protections. See Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d at 762, n.8 (no

protected liberty interest implicated in loss of certain privileges and demotion to C-grade). As

such, Plaintiff has not described a constitutionally protected interest that triggered his right to due

process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, Count 1 will be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to state a claim against the defendants.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a First Amended

Complaint on or before January 2, 2024. The First Amended Complaint is subject to review

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Should Plaintiff file a First Amended Complaint, it is strongly

recommended that he use the civil rights complaint form designed for use in this District. He

should label the form “First Amended Complaint” and list the case number (No. 23-cv-01993-

SMY) on the first page. Plaintiff should identify each defendant in the case caption and include

enough allegations in the statement of claim to describe what each defendant did or failed to do to

violate his constitutional rights, see DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990) (a

successful complaint generally alleges “the who, what, when, where, and how. . . .”), and include

the relevant facts in chronological order, inserting each defendant’s name where necessary to

identify the actors and actions. Plaintiff may use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” to refer to parties

whose names are unknown, but he must describe each Doe Defendant and their involvement in the

alleged unconstitutional conduct (e.g., John Doe did X and Jane Doe did Y).

Should Plaintiff fail to file a First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent

with the instructions in this Order, the entire action will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to

comply with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien

v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994).

The dismissal will count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of

Court 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 14 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. FED. R. CIV.

P. 41(b). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint

form, along with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 4, 2023 s/ Staci M. Yandle_____

STACI M. YANDLE

United States District Judge