Miles v. Mitchell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BILLY MILES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-cv-3562-NJR

STATE OF ILLINOIS, JACKSONVILLE

CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL

CENTER, PERRY COUNTY, DAVID W.

MITCHELL, A. HAGGARD, J.

SADDLER, J. MCCLENNING, TRENT,

FILKINS, ADEWALE KUFORIJI, and

ROB JEFFREYS,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff Billy Miles, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is

currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Pinckneyville

Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”).1 Miles’s original Complaint (Doc. 1) alleging

1 This case is one of 13 that the Court received from Miles. For ease of comprehension as the Court

manages these cases, and any potential future cases, the cases have been assigned basic numeral

identifiers as follows: Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3562-NJR (“Miles 1”), Miles v. Mitchell,

et al., Case No. 23-cv-3563-NJR (“Miles 2”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3564-NJR (“Miles

3”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-2365-NJR (“Miles 4”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No.

23-cv-2366-NJR (“Miles 5”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3567-NJR (“Miles 6”), Miles v.

Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3568-NJR (“Miles 7”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3569-

NJR (“Miles 8”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3570-NJR (“Miles 9”), Miles v. Mitchell, et

al., Case No. 23-cv-3571-NJR (“Miles 10”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3572-NJR (“Miles

missing commissary items from his personal property was dismissed without prejudice

(Doc. 9). Miles was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. On January 11, 2024,

Miles filed his Amended Complaint (Doc. 15). He again alleges that items were

confiscated from his personal property.

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

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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The Amended Complaint

In the Amended Complaint, Miles makes the following allegations: On October

25, 2021, while at Jacksonville Correctional Center (“Jacksonville”), Miles had an

altercation and was sent to segregation (Doc. 15, p. 8). As a result, Miles packed up his

property (Id.). On October 27, 2021, property officer C/O McClenning discovered several

items in Miles’s packed property that were considered contraband under IDOC

regulations (Id. at pp. 8, 18-19). He also located several items that Miles had in excess of

the amount allowed by IDOC regulations. Some of the items confiscated were 500

pictures containing nudity, alcohol, drug use, and money (Id.). Miles also lists numerous

11”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3579-NJR (“Miles 12”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No.

23-cv-3580-NJR (“Miles 13”).

other items in his personal property, although it is not clear how many of these items

were confiscated. He provides a list of items including: a laundry bag, TV mat, batteries,

clear bags, skull caps, gloves, photo albums, drinking pitcher and cups, lotions, extension

cords, headphones, toothpaste, comb, pens, razors, ear buds, a beard trimmer,

toothbrushes, mirrors, blankets, mattress pads, bedsheets, sweeteners, chips, peanut

butter, tea bags, crackers, soda, ramen noodles, binders, paper, shirts, boxes, beach

towels, wash towels, shampoo, gym shorts, socks, and mouthwash (Id. at pp. 8-9, 18-19).

Some of his property was placed on a 30-day confiscation list. Miles alleges that

McClenning failed to provide him with any relief (Id. at p. 8).

On November 1, 2021, Miles transferred from Jacksonville to Pinckneyville and

was placed in segregation (Id. at p. 9). Miles inquired about the status of his property with

Pinckneyville’s property officers C/O Trent and C/O Filkins (Id.). On November 9, 2021,

Miles transferred to general population (Id. at p. 10). He wrote a grievance about his

property that was denied by counselor A. Haggard, grievance officer J. Saddler, David

W. Mitchell, Adewale Kuforiji, and Rob Jeffreys (Id. at pp. 10-11). The grievance responses

indicate that the items were properly seized, noting that different facilities have different

contraband lists based on security levels (Id. at pp. 16, 18). The grievance officer also noted

that some of the confiscated items were also considered non-compliant at Pinckneyville

(Id. at p. 21).

On November 10, 2021, Trent and/or Filkins presented Miles with a 30-day

confiscation form, informing Miles that certain items in his property would be destroyed

unless he paid to have the items shipped home (Id. at p. 10). Miles paid $200.00 to ship

the property to his family (Id.). Miles alleges that none of the defendants tried to provide

him with any relief for his claims. He also alleges that the prisons are final policymakers

and also make policies and customs (Id. at p. 11). Finally, Miles alleges that he is a disabled

inmate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act

(“RA”), suffers from a serious mental illness, and is protected by the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

(“RLUIPA”).

Discussion

Simply put, Miles again fails to state a claim. There are a number of issues with

the Amended Complaint. First and foremost, Miles fails to identify a constitutional

violation. He alleges that numerous items were confiscated from his personal property

but acknowledges that the items were labeled contraband. He was also allowed to send

the items home to family. There are simply no allegations to suggest that the confiscation

was improper. Further, Miles fails to allege how the confiscation of his property violated

his constitutional rights. There are no allegations suggesting that the items were

confiscated in retaliation for some constitutionally protected conduct, allegations that

might implicate the First Amendment. See Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir.

2012).

Miles is also unable to state a loss of property claim under the Fourteenth

Amendment. To state such a claim, Miles must establish a deprivation of liberty or

property without due process of law. Moreover, if the state provides an adequate remedy,

Miles has no civil rights claim. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530–36 (1984) (availability

of damages remedy in state claims court is an adequate, post-deprivation remedy). Miles

states that he was allowed to send his property home, so it does not appear that the items

were destroyed. To the extent that Miles alleges that any property was destroyed, his

avenue of relief would be through state court. Illinois provides an adequate post-

deprivation remedy in an action for damages in the Illinois Court of Claims. Murdock v.

Washington, 193 F.3d 510, 513 (7th Cir. 1999); Stewart v. McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031, 1036 (7th

Cir. 1993). Miles simply fails to allege a viable constitutional violation based on the

confiscation of his property.

Miles also cites numerous statutes, stating that he qualifies as a disabled individual

under the ADA and RA. He also cites to RFRA and RLUIPA. But Miles fails to offer any

allegations to suggest a violation of any of these statutes. None of the confiscated items

suggest a violation of these statutes nor do any of the identified defendants’ actions

violate these statutes. Miles simply cites to the statutes without any allegations

suggesting their applicability. Thus, Miles fails to state any claim as to the confiscation of

his property.

And there are additional issues with Miles’s Amended Complaint. He identifies

the State of Illinois and both Jacksonville and Pinckneyville as defendants, but neither

can be liable because neither are a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983. Will v.

Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-71 (1989) (“neither a State nor its officials acting

in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under [Section] 1983”); Billman v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr.,

56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 1995) (state “Department of Corrections is immune from suit by

virtue of Eleventh Amendment”). He also identifies grievance officials, who he alleges

failed to remedy his complaints, but these officials cannot be liable for simply responding

to his grievances. 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.”).

For all of these reasons, Miles again fails to state a claim. This is Miles’s second

attempt to state a viable claim in regard to his confiscated property, and he has been

unable to do so. The Court finds that a further amendment would be futile. His Amended

Complaint is, thus, DISMISSED with prejudice. Miles’s motion for counsel (Doc. 17) is

DENIED as moot.

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, Miles’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with

prejudice for failure to state a claim. The dismissal counts as one of Miles’s three allotted

“strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Miles is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action

was incurred at the time the action was filed. Therefore, the filing fee remains due and

payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).

If Miles wishes to appeal this Order, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court

within 30 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). If Miles does choose to

appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate 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, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien, 133

F.3d at 467. He must list each of the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal,

and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must set forth the issues he plans to

present on appeal. See FED. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). Moreover, if the appeal is found to be

nonmeritorious, Miles may also incur another “strike.” 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 more than 28 days after the

entry of judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2024 Tl

wefhnseg’

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

Chief U.S. District Judge