stating that “the alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
- noting that 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”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MOHAMMED ABUHARBA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:23-cv-03834-GCS
NATHAN MCCARTHY, JOSHUA
SCHOENBECK, ANTHONY JONES,
ANTHONY WILLS, YVETTE BAKER,
and ADEWALE KUFORIJI,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Mohammed Abuharba, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights
while incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges the defendants violated his due process rights in issuing a false disciplinary ticket,
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also alleges an Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claim for the conditions he experienced in segregation.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint
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). 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges that on December 9, 2021, while he was out on the yard, Menard
correctional staff conducted a search of his cell. (Doc. 1, p. 3). After the search, Plaintiff
was escorted to the North 2 cellhouse and placed in segregation. He was issued a ticket
for “dangerous contraband” and “damage or misuse of property.” Id. at p. 3-4. The ticket,
issued by Nathan McCarthy, alleged that Plaintiff conspired to make a weapon using
metal from the shelf in his cell. Id. at p. 4, 8-9. Plaintiff maintains that he did not remove
metal from his shelf and the allegations were completely fabricated. Id. He alleges that
the allegations in the ticket were vague, leaving him unable to prepare a proper defense.
On December 14, 2021, Plaintiff went before the adjustment committee. Joshua
Schoenbeck and Anthony Jones found him guilty of the charges and sentenced him to
four months in segregation (Doc. 1, p. 4). Plaintiff alleges that the decision failed to
include any evidence. Warden Anthony Wills signed off on the findings. Id. Plaintiff also
alleges that McCarthy, Schoenbeck, Jones, and Wills colluded to write and find him guilty
of a false disciplinary ticket as part of a ploy to receive funding for a new camera system.
Id. at p. 4-5. He alleges other inmates received similar, unsubstantiated tickets. Id. Plaintiff
wrote a grievance about the disciplinary ticket, but his grievance was denied by Baker,
Wills, and Kuforiji. Id. at p. 6.
Plaintiff alleges that while in segregation, he was subjected to atypical and
significant conditions of confinement. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He alleges that he was denied a
shower for the entire first week and denied access to recreation for 90 days. Id. The cell in
which Plaintiff was placed was extremely small, covered in rust, and had a bright light
which never turned off. Id. He was unable to exercise or sleep in the cell. Id. He was also
denied access to cleaning and hygiene supplies. The rust throughout the cell fell into his
food and water. The cell was also covered in black mold. Id. The showers in segregation
were dirty and were not cleaned on a regular basis. The showers often had other inmates’
blood, saliva, feces, and urine. Id. Plaintiff stayed in segregation for four months.
DISCUSSION
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following
counts:
Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Nathan
McCarthy, Joshua Schoenbeck, Anthony Jones, Anthony
Wills, Yvette Baker, and Adewale Kuforiji for issuing
Abuharba a false disciplinary ticket.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim
against Yvette Baker, Anthony Wills, and Adewale Kuforiji
for failing to remedy the conditions Abuharba faced while
in segregation.
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and
orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that
is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading
standard.1
Count 1
When an inmate raises a procedural due process claim, the Court undertakes a
two-part analysis. See Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 524 (7th Cir. 2017). The Court first
evaluates whether the prisoner was deprived of a protected liberty interest, and then
second, evaluates whether the process he was afforded was constitutionally deficient. Id.
(citing Hess v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, 839 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir.
2016)). Due process safeguards that are associated with prison disciplinary hearings
include: (1) advance written notice of the charges; (2) the opportunity to appear before an
impartial hearing body to contest the charges; (3) the opportunity to call witnesses and
present documentary evidence as a defense (if prison safety allows and subject to the
discretion of correctional officers); and (4) a written statement summarizing the reasons
for the discipline imposed. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-569 (1974). In
addition, the decision of the adjustment committee must be supported by “some
evidence.” Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 941 (7th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff adequately alleges that he was deprived of a protected liberty interest. He
alleges that he was subjected to segregation for four months and the conditions were
unsanitary. Plaintiff also alleges that the disciplinary decision was not supported by any
1 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (noting that 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”).
evidence because the ticket was false. He alleges that officials colluded to charge him with
making a weapon as part of a scheme to secure additional funding for security measures
at the prison. Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that the hearing body lacked impartiality and
that the charges were not supported by “some evidence.” Plaintiff further alleges that
McCarthy issued the false charges, and Schoenbeck, Jones, and Anthony Wills found him
guilty of the charges. Thus, Count 1 shall proceed against these officers.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Yvette Baker and Adewale Kuforiji failed to
remedy the issue with his disciplinary ticket when they denied his grievance. But prison
officials cannot be held liable for simply denying Plaintiff’s grievances. See, e.g., Owens v.
Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that “the alleged mishandling of [a
prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the
underlying conduct states no claim.”). Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges Yvette
Baker and Adewale Kuforiji also violated his due process rights in Count 1, they are
DISMISSED without prejudice.
Count 2
Although Plaintiff alleges that he grieved the conditions he experienced in
segregation and seeks to raise an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim in
Count 2, these officials cannot be liable for simply denying grievances related to his
conditions. Further, there is no indication that he specifically spoke to any defendant
about the conditions in segregation. Thus, the claim against Anthony Wills, Baker, and
Kuforiji in Count 2 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Nathan McCarthy,
Joshua Schoenbeck, Anthony Jones, and Anthony Wills. Count 2 and all claims against
Yvette Baker and Adewale Kuforiji are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Nathan McCarthy, Joshua
Schoenbeck, Anthony Jones, and Anthony Wills: (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 Complaint, and this
Memorandum and Order to each defendant’s place of employment as identified by
Plaintiff. If a 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 that defendant, and the Court will require
that defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If a defendant can no longer 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, 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. Address information shall not be maintained
in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to
the Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merit Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment
of costs under Section 1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,
regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(f)(2)(A).
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the
Clerk of Court and each 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 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. See FED. R. CIv. PROC. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
he. 2024. hae, signed by
PONE Albint DS tyate: 2024.03.12
11:09:33 -05'00'
GILBERTC.SISON sis
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 7 of 8
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of
your lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been
achieved, the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your
Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the
defendants’ Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all
the defendants have filed Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing
important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to
wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, to give the
defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature.
Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically
directed to do so.