Miles v. Mitchell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BILLY MILES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-cv-3567-NJR

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL

CENTER, PERRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS,

C/O TRENT, C/O FILKINS, S. BROWN,

J. SADDLER, DAVID W. MITCHELL,

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, alleging defendants

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

failed to provide him with a legal box contract, was dismissed without prejudice for

failure to state a viable claim (Docs. 1, 10). Miles was granted leave to file an amended

pleading (Doc. 10). In his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15), Miles again alleges that he

failed to receive a legal box contract. He also alleges that some of his legal materials went

missing while at Pinckneyville.

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

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

January 1, 2019, while at Jacksonville Correctional Center, the property officer directed

Miles to transfer his legal property from a gray storage box to a brown cardboard box

(Doc. 15, p. 8). Miles was also issued a legal box contract.

On November 1, 2021, Miles was transferred to Pinckneyville. On December 7,

2021, Miles went to the law library to review the materials in his legal storage box (Id.).

He noted that his property had been transferred from the cardboard box to a gray storage

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”).

box outside of his presence (Id.). Miles alleges that some of the items from his box were

missing, including unidentified legal books and papers (Id.). Miles maintains that the

property officers at Pinckneyville failed to contact him about the transfer of his property

from one box to the other (Id.). Miles also never received a legal box contract from the

property officers (Id.). On December 10, 2021, Miles spoke to the property officer, C/O

Trent, but Trent refused to give Miles any relief (Id. at p. 9). C/O Filkins, another property

officer at Pinckneyville, also refused to provide Miles with relief (Id.).

Miles filed a grievance about the issue, but the grievance was denied by counselor

S. Brown, who noted that there was no policy prohibiting the transfer of property from

one storage container to another container (Id. at pp. 8-9). Miles’s grievance also was

denied by grievance officer J. Saddler, warden David W. Mitchell, Administrative Review

Board member Adewale Kuforiji, and director Rob Jeffreys (Id. at pp. 9-10).

Discussion

Simply put, Miles again fails to state a claim because he fails to tie his allegations

to a constitutional violation. Although he alleges that his legal items were transferred to

another storage box outside of his presence and he was not provided with a legal box

contract, those allegations do not amount to a constitutional violation. At most, his

allegations amount to a violation of prison policy or regulation, which does not state a

claim. See Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003).

Miles also alleges that documents and legal books went missing from his box, but

he does not allege that those documents or books prevented him from pursuing a

legitimate challenge to his conviction, sentence, or prison conditions, allegations which

might state a valid access-to-courts claim. See Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664, 671 (7th Cir.

2009) (“a prisoner’s complaint must spell out, in minimal detail, the connection between

the alleged denial of access to legal materials and an inability to pursue a legitimate

challenge to a conviction, sentence, or prison conditions”) (quotations omitted). And he

fails to allege that any of the defendants destroyed or removed the missing legal

materials. He alleges that he spoke to C/O Trent and C/O Filkins about his concerns and

they “refuse[d] to give [him] relief” but he fails to allege that they were personally

involved in the transfer or loss of any of the described materials (Doc. 15, p. 9). He also

alleges that a number of officials denied his grievances, but grievance officials cannot be

liable for simply responding to or denying 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.”).

Finally, Miles cites to numerous statutes, stating that he qualifies as a disabled

individual 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”). But Miles fails to offer any allegations to suggest a violation of any of these

statutes.

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

to state a viable claim, and he has been unable to do so. The Court finds that a further

amendment would be futile. The First 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 First 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.

FED. 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 27, 2024 TN g )

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

Chief U.S. District Judge