Lomeli v. Wills

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LUIS A. LOMELI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-cv-2518-MAB

ANTHONY WILLS, C/O SCHANZ, C/O

BOHNERT, C/O RATHKE, C/O

ANTHONY JONES, C/O TERRANCE

JACKSON, LIEUTENANT JOSHUAA

SCHOENBECK, and LIEUTENANT

PRIDDY,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Luis A. Lomeli, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action

for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lomeli’s original

Complaint (Doc. 1), alleging due process violations in a disciplinary hearing, was

dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim (Doc. 9). Lomeli was granted leave

to file an Amended Complaint. On December 14, 2023, Lomeli filed his Amended

Complaint (Doc. 12). He again alleges Fourteenth Amendment due process violations in

two disciplinary hearings.

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Amended

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The Amended Complaint

In his Amended Complaint, Lomeli makes the following allegations: On August

27, 2022, while housed in Menard’s East Cellhouse, Cell #422, the tactical team removed

Lomeli and his cellmate from their cell (Doc. 12, p. 8). The tactical team then conducted a

search of Lomeli’s cell. After the search, both Lomeli and his cellmate were placed in

North 2 Restrictive Housing (Id.). Later that evening, Lomeli received an Investigative

Disciplinary Report informing him that he was on investigative status. On September 16,

2022, Lomeli received a disciplinary ticket charging him with a conspiracy involving

drugs and drug paraphernalia (Id.). The ticket noted that during the August 27 search of

Lomeli’s cell, Lieutenant Priddy located a handwritten note in the bottom bunkbed’s

mattress (Id. at p. 9). Lomeli was known to sleep in that bed and the note was attributed

to Lomeli. The note, written in Spanish, but translated by Correctional Officer (“C/O”)

1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen the Amended 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 and

Wexford Health Sources, Inc., to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memoranda

of Understanding between this Court and these two entities.

Martinez (a state approved translator) contained information about obtaining drugs and

drug paraphernalia (Id.).

After Lomeli received the disciplinary ticket, he submitted a written request to the

Adjustment Committee seeking video footage of Priddy’s search and subsequent

discovery of the note in Lomeli’s mattress, a copy of the note, and C/O Martinez’s

translator credentials (Id.). Lomeli noted that a surveillance camera was directly across

from his cell and should have captured the search of his cell. On September 21, 2022,

Lomeli went before the Adjustment Committee, which consisted of members Lieutenant

Joshuaa Schoenbeck and C/O Anthony B. Jones (Id. at p. 10). Lomeli provided the

committee with a handwritten copy of his requests. Schoenbeck also confirmed receipt of

Lomeli’s original requests. Schoenbeck denied Lomeli’s requests. Lomeli requested

additional time for the committee to produce the video, conduct a handwriting analysis

of the note, and produce C/O Martinez’s credentials, but Schoenbeck refused the request

(Id.).

The Adjustment Committee proceeded with the hearing and found Lomeli guilty

of the charges (Id.). He was disciplined with 3 months in segregation and 3 months

commissary restrictions (Id. at pp. 11, 26).

On September 22, 2022, Lomeli received a second disciplinary ticket (Id. at p. 11).

This ticket alleged that during the search of Lomeli’s cell, Lieutenant Priddy also

discovered a small bag containing a white, powdery substance (Id.). The bag was located

in the same mattress as the note (Id. at p. 12). Internal Affairs tested the substance and it

yielded a positive response for drugs. The substance was then submitted to the Illinois

State Police Crime Lab for further testing (Id.). On September 20, 2022, officials at Menard

received the Crime Lab’s drug chemistry report, finding that the substance was

Gabapentin (Id.). Lomeli was charged with drug possession (Id.).

Lomeli again submitted a written request for physical evidence to the Adjustment

Committee (Id.). He specifically requested video footage of the search of his cell (Id. at p.

13). On September 28, 2022, Lomeli went before the Adjustment Committee which

included members Schoenbeck and C/O Terrance T. Jackson (Id.). Lomeli presented the

committee with a copy of his request for evidence and Schoenbeck acknowledged

receiving the original request. But Schoenbeck denied Lomeli’s request for video footage

of the search (Id.). Lomeli asked for a continuance in order that the video footage could

be obtained and Schoenbeck denied that request. The Adjustment Committee found

Lomeli guilty of the drug offense and sentenced him to 6 months in segregation, 6 months

commissary restrictions, and 6 months visitation restrictions, to run consecutive to his

prior discipline (Id. at pp. 14, 28).

As a result of the sentence, Lomeli spent a total time of 9 months in segregation

(Id. at p. 14). He was housed in segregation from August 27, 2022 until May 8, 2023 (Id. at

p. 17). When Lomeli was first placed in his cell, he noticed feces on the walls and a strong

smell of urine (Id.). Lomeli never received cleaning supplies for his cell, nor was he

allowed any laundry services for his clothing (Id.). His cell also lacked hot water (Id.). The

gallery showers flooded often and caused flooding throughout the gallery (Id.). Lomeli

experienced constant banging, yelling, and screaming from other inmates on the gallery

that prevented him from sleeping (Id. at p. 18).

Lomeli alleges that his due process rights were violated during the disciplinary

hearings for the two disciplinary tickets. Despite submitting advanced requests for

documentary evidence, including video footage of the searches and a copy of the

handwritten note, Lomeli alleges that his requests were denied (Id. at pp. 14-15). He

alleges that Lieutenant Priddy wrote a false disciplinary ticket and Lomeli was prevented

from demonstrating that no drugs or note were ever located by Priddy (Id. at p. 15).

Lomeli also alleges that he was improperly charged twice and disciplined with too much

time in segregation, a violation of IDOC rules. Specifically, Lomeli alleges that the

discipline entered against him was a violation of IDOC Directive Rule 504.100 that puts

limits on the amount of discipline an inmate can receive when multiple offenses arise out

of a single incident (Id.). Lomeli alleges that the maximum penalty he could receive was

the maximum penalty for the most serious offense (Id.). Thus, Lomeli alleges that he

should have only served 6 months in segregation rather than the 9 months he served (Id.).

Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court designates the

following counts:

Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Anthony

Wills, C/O Schanz, C/O Bohnert, C/O Rathke, C/O Anthony

Jones, C/O Terrance Jackson, Lieutenant Joshuaa

Schoenbeck, and Lieutenant Priddy for denying Lomeli

access to documentary evidence during the disciplinary

hearing.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim

against Anthony Wills, C/O Schanz, C/O Bohnert, C/O

Rathke, C/O Anthony Jones, C/O Terrance Jackson,

Lieutenant Joshuaa Schoenbeck, and Lieutenant Priddy for

subjecting Lomeli to unsanitary conditions in disciplinary

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 Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be

considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly

pleading standard.2

Count 1

At this stage, Lomeli states a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against

Joshuaa Schoenbeck, Anthony Jones, Terrance Jackson, and Lieutenant Priddy. “The Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to deprivations of life, liberty,

and property.” Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 524 (7th Cir. 2017). When an inmate raises a

procedural due process claim, the Court undertakes a two-part analysis. Id. 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. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 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

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”).

of correctional officers); and (4) a written statement summarizing the reasons for the

discipline imposed. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (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).

Lomeli alleges that he spent 9 months in segregation in unsanitary conditions. His

cell was dirty, he lacked access to laundry services for his clothing, and he lacked hot

water. He also experienced flooding in the gallery and constant screaming and yelling

from other inmates which caused him psychological stress (Doc. 12, pp. 17-18). His

amount of time in segregation and the conditions he experienced could amount to a

deprivation of a liberty interest.

As to the Adjustment Committee members, including Joshuaa Schoenbeck,

Anthony Jones, and Terrance Jackson, Lomeli alleges that he was denied access to

documentary evidence during his disciplinary hearing. Wolf, 418 U.S. at 566 (due process

protections require that an inmate be allowed to “present documentary evidence when

permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or

correctional goals”); Piggie v. McBride, 277 F.3d 922, 924 (7th Cir. 2002) (the prison “may

not arbitrarily refuse to consider exculpatory evidence”); Keller v. Cross, 603 F. App’x 488,

490 (7th Cir. 2015) (“If timely requested, material exculpatory evidence must be disclosed

in prison disciplinary proceedings.”). Lomeli alleges that this evidence, including video

footage of the search and a copy of the note, would have demonstrated that the materials

were not his and that Lieutenant Priddy issued a false disciplinary ticket. Further, Lomeli

alleges that he requested the evidence prior to and at the hearing but was still denied

access to evidence that would prove his innocence. Keller, 603 F. App’x at 490 (“inmates

must request the evidence before or at the hearing, since due process does not require

hearing officers to consider evidence that could have been but was not presented at the

hearing”) (citing Piggie, 277 F.3d at 925). Thus, Lomeli states a due process claim against

the Adjustment Committee members at this stage.

Lomeli also states a due process claim against Lieutenant Priddy who he alleges

issued a false disciplinary ticket. Standing alone, the receipt of a false disciplinary ticket

does not give rise to a due process violation. This is because “due process safeguards

associated with prison disciplinary proceedings are sufficient to guard against potential

abuses[,] [and a] hearing before a presumably impartial Adjustment Committee

terminates an officer's possible liability for the filing of an allegedly false disciplinary

report.” Hadley v. Peters, 841 F. Supp. 850, 856 (C.D. Ill. 1994), aff'd, 70 F.3d 117 (7th Cir.

1995) (citations omitted). See also Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140 (7th Cir. 1984). But

because Lomeli has alleged that he was denied due process protections, his claim against

Priddy cannot be dismissed at this time.

Lomeli fails, however, to state a claim against the remaining defendants. Although

he also lists Anthony Wills, C/O Schanz, C/O Bohnert, and C/O Rathke in the case

caption, he fails to include any allegations against them in his statement of claim. There

are simply no allegations to suggest that these individuals participated in the search of

Lomeli’s cell or were members of the adjustment committee. Thus, Count 1 is

DISMISSED without prejudice as to Anthony Wills, C/O Schanz, C/O Bohnert, and

C/O Rathke.

Further, to the extent that Lomeli seeks to allege a claim regarding violations of

the administrative code in his sentencing, he likewise fails to state a claim. Lomeli alleges

that he improperly received 9 months in segregation when his discipline should have

been limited to the maximum penalty of the most serious offense, in Lomeli’s case that

would have limited his discipline to 6 months in segregation. Lomeli alleges that the

defendants violated IDOC directives and rules when they combined his segregation

sentence. But the violation of an administrative directive does not amount to a

constitutional violation. Whitman v. Nesic, 368 F.3d 931, 935 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004); Scott v.

Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[Section] 1983 protects plaintiffs from

constitutional violations, not violations of state laws or…departmental regulations”). To

the extent Lomeli alleges that the defendants violated IDOC rules and regulations, those

claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Count 2

Lomeli also fails to state a claim against any defendant regarding his conditions of

confinement. Although Lomeli alleges that he faced unconstitutional conditions of

confinement in segregation, he fails to allege that he made any of the named defendants

aware of the conditions that he faced. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“prison

official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate

humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an

excessive risk to inmate health or safety”). Nor are there any allegations to suggest that

these individuals acted with deliberate indifference. Thus, Count 2 is DISMISSED

without prejudice.

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Joshuaa Schoenbeck,

Lieutenant Priddy, C/O Anthony Jones, and C/O Terrance Jackson. Count 2 and the

claims against Anthony Wills, C/O Schanz, C/O Bohnert, and C/O Rathke are

DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Joshuaa Schoenbeck, Lieutenant

Priddy, C/O Anthony Jones, and C/O Terrance Jackson: (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 Amended

Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to each defendant’s place of employment

as identified by Lomeli. 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 Lomeli, 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 Amended 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 Lomeli, 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, Lomeli 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. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/25/2024

/s/ Mark A. Beatty

MARK A. BEATTY

United States Magistrate Judge

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 Amended Complaint. After service has

been achieved, the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your

Amended 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.