Miles v. Mitchell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BILLY MILES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-cv-3579-NJR

STATE OF ILLINOIS, PERRY

COUNTY, ILLINOIS, PINCKNEYVILLE

CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

COMMISSARY AT PINCKNEYVILLE,

FOOD SERVICES ADMINISTATOR

AT PINCKNEYVILLE, IDOC FOOD

SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR AT

PINCKNEYVILLE, AMERICAN

DIETETIC ASSOCIATION AT

PINCKNEYVILLE, S. BROWN, C.

HALE, DAVID MITCHELL, ADEWALE

KUFORIJI, and ROB JEFFREYS,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff Billy Miles, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)

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 that officials

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.

at Pinckneyville “scar[r]ed” his meal trays, was dismissed without prejudice for failure

to state a claim (Docs. 1, 9). Miles was granted leave to submit an amended pleading. In

his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15), Miles alleges he was provided with small food

portions 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: From

approximately November 1, 2021, to April 15, 2023, Miles was housed at Pinckneyville

on C grade (Doc. 15, p. 8). Due to his status on C Grade, Miles was unable to purchase his

own food from the commissary (Id.). Pinckneyville Correctional Center refused to

provide Miles with any relief (Id.). During the same timeframe, the IDOC Food Services

Administrator, the Food Services Administrator at Pinckneyville, and the American

Dietetic Association at Pinckneyville provided Miles with “small portion size[s]” (Id. at

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

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”).

pp. 8-9). None of the administrators provided Miles with any relief (Id.). Miles wrote a

grievance about his concerns, but the grievance was denied by counselor S. Brown,

grievance officer C. Hale, warden David Mitchell, Administrative Review Board member

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

Discussion

Simply put, Miles once again fails to state a claim. Miles alleges that he received

what he believed to be small portion sizes at mealtimes, but he does not describe the

portion sizes that he received. Although the denial of food can amount to a constitutional

violation, to determine whether Miles’s allegations rise to the level of a constitutional

violation, the court “must assess the amount and duration of the deprivation.” Reed v.

McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1999). See also Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823,

830 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Depriving a person of food for four days would impose a

constitutionally significant hardship.”). Miles alleges that he received smaller portions

from November 1, 2021, until April 15, 2023, but he fails to provide any indication as to

the amount of food he received for his meals. He does not allege that he was denied meals

altogether; he merely alleges that the portion sizes were small. But nothing in the

Amended Complaint suggests that his portions were constitutionally inadequate or that

he suffered any harm because of the smaller portions. In fact, Miles’s attached grievance

suggests that Miles received the same portion of food that all inmates at Pinckneyville

received. The grievance response states that portion sizes were determined by the master

menu and certified to meet nutritional guidelines (Doc. 15, pp. 19-21). Miles simply fails

to allege any facts suggesting that his portion sizes amounted to a constitutional violation.

Miles further fails to allege any constitutional violation regarding his commissary

privileges. Although Miles alleges that he was placed on C Grade and prohibited from

purchasing items from the commissary, Miles fails to allege that these actions amount to

a constitutional violation. Inmates do not usually have a protected liberty interest in

either their placement on C Grade or restrictions on commissary. See Thomas v. Ramos, 130

F.3d 754, 762 n. 8 (7th Cir. 1997).

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.

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 28, 2024 Tl

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL |

Chief U.S. District Judge