“Issuing false and unjustified disciplinary charges can amount to a violation of substantive due process if the charges were in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right.”
How later courts described this case
- “Issuing false and unjustified disciplinary charges can amount to a violation of substantive due process if the charges were in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right.”
- “[Section] 1983 protects plaintiffs from constitutional violations, not violations of state laws or, in this case, departmental regulations and … practices.”
- two months not enough on its own
- 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARTIN LYONS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 24-cv-106-NJR
NATHAN ATTEBURY, KEVIN
JOHNSON, L. HOLLIS, LT. WISE, S.
SLUNAKER, JENIELLE FITZJARRALD,
A. CASOLORI, and A. GONZALEZ,1
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Martin Lyons, 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 Lawrence
Correctional Center. In the Complaint, Lyons alleges that the defendants retaliated
against him by issuing false disciplinary tickets and denied his due process rights in
disciplinary hearings. He alleges claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
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
1 Lyons recently submitted a letter indicating that Defendant Jenielle Fitzgerald’s proper name is
Jenielle Fitzjarrald (Doc. 11). Thus, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CORRECT the docket to
reflect defendant’s updated last name.
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 Complaint
In the Complaint, Lyons makes the following allegations: On May 9, 2022, while
at Lawrence Correctional Center, Lyons spoke to Correctional Officer (“C/O”) Josh
Slunaker and requested a crisis team (Doc. 1, p. 3). Lyons alleges that he needed a crisis
team because his prior requests to speak to mental health went unanswered for three
weeks and his prison job had recently been taken away from him (Id.). Mental health staff
were called; Lyons spoke to them and returned to his cell (Id.). He was subsequently
walked to segregation on a fabricated disciplinary report for improperly calling a crisis
team.
On May 10, 2022, C/O West delivered a disciplinary ticket about the incident (Id.).
Lyons informed West that he had witnesses to the incident who would testify. Lyons
wrote on the form requesting that inmates Diaz and Harris be called as witnesses to the
incident. Lyons also indicated on the written form that he wanted the video footage of
the dayroom where the incident took place viewed as part of the disciplinary hearing
(Id.). In response, West checked the box on the form indicating that Lyons refused to sign
the ticket (Id.).
On May 18, 2022, Lyons went before the adjustment committee for his disciplinary
hearing; the adjustment committee included Nathan Attebury and Kevin Johnson (Id. at
p. 4). He again requested to call witnesses and view the camera footage (Id.). He was
found guilty of the charges but let out of segregation after the hearing (Id.). The Final
Summary Report from the hearing indicates that no witnesses were requested (Id. at
p. 10). Lyons received seven days in segregation as punishment for the charges (Id.).
Lyons grieved the disciplinary charges and ruling but did not receive any relief (Id. at
p. 4).
On July 20, 2022, Lyons was in the law library discussing a civil complaint with
another inmate. Counselor Jenielle Fitzjarrald walked by with another inmate and
entered the library supervisor’s office (Doc. 1, p. 4). After Fitzjarrald left the library, a
lieutenant pulled Lyons from the library and questioned Lyons about threats he allegedly
made towards Fitzjarrald (Id.). Lyons denied the accusations, and the law librarian stated
that she did not see or hear any threats from Lyons (Id.). Lyons was transported to
segregation and issued a disciplinary ticket for threatening Fitzjarrald (Id. at pp. 4, 12).
He alleges that the disciplinary ticket was a complete fabrication and included threats
that were impossible to make without someone overhearing the threats (Id. at p. 4). Lyons
again requested witnesses, including the inmate he was speaking to at the time (Id.).
Committee members Attebury and Johnson again found Lyons guilty of the charges.
Lyons’s inmate witness would have testified that he did not hear anything, and the law
librarian testified that she did not hear or see the interaction between Lyons and
Fitzjarrald (Id.). Despite lacking any evidence to support Fitzjarrald’s allegations, Lyons
was found guilty of the charges (Id. at pp. 4, 21). He again received seven days in
segregation (Id. at p. 21). Lyons filed a grievance asking for camera footage from the
library, but his request was ignored (Id. at p. 4). He also wrote a grievance claiming that
the committee members were impartial and bias (Id. at p. 5).
On September 29, 2022, Lieutenant Wise approached Lyons’s cell and directed him
to cuff up, noting that Lyons had written his last grievance at Lawrence (Id. at p. 5). Lyons
was transferred to segregation on investigative status and was not told the reason for the
investigation. Instead, he alleges the move was in retaliation for writing grievances
against staff (Id.). He was placed in a shower, and Wise directed A. Casolori to write a
ticket against Lyons that would stick in order to get him transferred to another prison
(Id.). On September 30, 2022, Lyons received an investigation ticket from A. Gonzalez. He
also received a disciplinary ticket from Casolori for threats (Id.). The ticket listed Wise
and S. Slunaker as witnesses (Id. at p. 7). He contends both tickets were fabricated and in
retaliation for writing grievances. Lyons also contends the investigation ticket was
inappropriate because Gonzalez failed to follow Illinois Administrative Code requiring
Gonzalez to interview Lyons (Id. at p. 5). The date on the ticket was also incorrect (Id.).
Lyons wrote grievances about the tickets, but the grievances went unanswered.
On October 5, 2022, Lyons was escorted to his disciplinary hearing by L. Hollis (Id.
at p. 6). He handed Nathan Attebury and Kevin Johnson a written statement objecting to
them being on the committee due to a conflict of interest. Both committee members had
previously found him guilty on other charges (Id.). After the hearing, Attebury delivered
a refusal form to Lyons’s cell alleging that Lyons refused to attend the hearing (Id.). The
form listed L. Hollis as a witness (Id.). Lyons wrote grievances about the hearing, but the
grievances went unanswered (Id.). Lyons alleges that he was never properly interviewed
while on investigative status, as required by Illinois Administrative Code (Id.). Although
Gonzalez interviewed other inmates on investigative status, he never interviewed Lyons.
On October 22, 2022, Lyons was transferred from Lawrence to Menard
Correctional Center (Id. at p. 6). He was transferred despite being on a medical hold (Id.).
He alleges the disciplinary tickets and transfer were in retaliation for writing grievances
against staff at Lawrence (Id.).
Preliminary Dismissals
Lyons fails to state a claim against Josh Slunaker for issuing an allegedly false
disciplinary ticket. Although he alleges that Slunaker issued a fabricated disciplinary
ticket after Lyons spoke with a crisis team, the receipt of a false disciplinary ticket does
not amount to a due process violation. 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). Nor has Lyons alleged that Slunaker issued the
disciplinary ticket in retaliation for Lyons participating in a First Amendment protected
activity. Lyons does not allege that Slunaker was reacting to any grievances or complaints
by Lyons. Further, Josh Slunaker is not identified as a defendant in the case caption.
See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551–52 (7th Cir. 2005) (to be properly considered
a party a defendant must be “specif[ied] in the caption”). Only S. Slunaker, a family
member of Josh Slunaker, is listed as a defendant because he was listed as a witness on
an allegedly false disciplinary ticket. Because Lyons fails to identify Josh Slunaker in the
case caption and fails to state a claim against him, any claim against Josh Slunaker is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
Lyons also fails to state a claim against S. Slunaker. He alleges that S. Slunaker was
listed as a witness on a fabricated disciplinary ticket (Doc. 1, pp. 7, 33). Although Lyons
alleges that S. Slunaker contributed to the false disciplinary ticket by being listed on the
ticket, there are no allegations to suggest that he was involved in the false disciplinary
ticket. Lyons does not allege that S. Slunaker wrote the ticket or testified against him.
Lyons acknowledges that Casalori wrote the ticket, and there is no indication that S.
Slunaker had any personal involvement in the issuance of the ticket. Thus, any claim
against S. Slunaker is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Finally, Lyons fails to state a claim against A. Gonzalez. He alleges that A.
Gonzalez issued a false investigation ticket and failed to follow the requirements of
Illinois Administrative Code 504.620 and 504.630. He alleges that Gonzalez wrote the
wrong date on the ticket and failed to properly interview him, all in violation of the
administrative code. But the violation of state law or administrative code fails to state a
claim. See Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[Section] 1983 protects
plaintiffs from constitutional violations, not violations of state laws or, in this case,
departmental regulations and … practices.”). There is no indication that Gonzalez issued
the ticket as an act of retaliation for some protected activity of Lyons. Instead, Lyons
alleges that Gonzalez’s actions merely “contributed” to the violations by other
defendants (Doc. 1, p. 8). But he fails to allege that Gonzalez retaliated against Lyons.
Thus, any claim against Gonzalez is also DISMISSED without prejudice.
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide
the pro se action into the following counts:
Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim
against Nathan Attebury and Kevin Johnson for refusing to
call Lyons’s witnesses or view the video tape of the May 9,
2022 incident in the dayroom.
Count 2: First Amendment retaliation claim against Fitzjarrald for
issuing Lyons a false disciplinary ticket in the law library.
Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Nathan
Attebury and Kevin Johnson for finding Lyons guilty of the
incident in the law library without evidence.
Count 4: First Amendment retaliation claim against Lieutenant Wise
and A. Casolori for issuing a false disciplinary ticket in
response to Lyons filing grievances.
Count 5: Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim
against Nathan Attebury and Kevin Johnson for finding
Lyons guilty of the disciplinary ticket.
Count 6: Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim
against Nathan Attebury, Kevin Johnson, and L. Hollis for
falsifying Lyons’s failure to appear at the disciplinary
hearing and finding him guilty of the disciplinary ticket.
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.2
Count 1
Lyons fails to state a claim for due process violations related to the disciplinary
ticket issued by Slunaker. As to Lyons’s procedural due process claim on an allegedly
false disciplinary ticket, the Court undertakes a two-part analysis. 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. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d
668, 673 (7th Cir. 2016)). Lyons fails to allege that he was deprived of a protected liberty
interest. Although Lyons was found guilty of the disciplinary report issued by Slunaker,
he received only seven days in segregation (Doc. 1, p. 10). Such a small stint in segregation
does not rise to the level of an atypical and significant hardship. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472, 484 (1995); Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d 754, 761-62 (7th Cir. 1997) (two months not
enough on its own); Williams v. Brown, 849 F. App’x 154, 157 (7th Cir. 2021) (noting that
30 days is not enough). Thus, Lyons fails to state a claim in Count 1.
Count 2
At this stage, however, Lyons states a claim regarding the disciplinary ticket
issued by Jenielle Fitzjarrald. Lyons alleges that she issued a fabricated disciplinary ticket
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”).
against him and that the ticket was in response to a grievance Lyons wrote about her
(Doc. 1, p. 8). He also alleges that he had several family members call her to complain that
she was not providing Lyons with clinical services. He further alleges that she wrote the
ticket after he wrote the grievance, suggesting her actions were in retaliation for Lyons’s
protected activity (Id.). Thus, he adequately states a claim in Count 2 against Fitzjarrald.
Count 3
Lyons fails to state a due process claim against Attebury and Johnson in relation
to the disciplinary ticket issued by Fitzjarrald (Doc. 1, p. 21). Lyons only received seven
days in segregation and, as previously stated, the short stay in segregation does not
amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest that would trigger due process protections.
Thus, Count 3 against Attebury and Johnson is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Count 4
Lyons also states a claim against Lieutenant Wise and A. Casolori for the allegedly
false disciplinary ticket issued on September 29, 2022. Lyons alleges that after writing
grievances about his issues with the impartiality of the adjustment committee and
grievance officials, Lieutenant Wise placed him in segregation. Wise allegedly told Lyons
that he had written his last grievance (Doc. 1, p. 5). He also allegedly told A. Casolori to
write a disciplinary ticket against Lyons that would “stick” (Id.). Lyons adequately alleges
that both officers wrote a disciplinary ticket in retaliation for grievances written against
staff. That is enough at this stage to state a claim.
Count 5
In addition to the false disciplinary ticket, Lyons alleges that he was denied due
process protections in the disciplinary hearing. But to the extent that he raises a
procedural due process claim, he fails to state a claim. Lyons fails to allege that he was
deprived of a protected liberty interest because he fails to indicate what punishment, if
any, he received from the ticket. Nor has he attached the final summary report from the
disciplinary hearing. He only states that his security level increased, but a prisoner does
not have a protected liberty interest in his classification. DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F.2d
211, 212 (7th Cir. 1992) (“prisoners possess neither liberty nor property in their
classifications and prison assignments”). Thus, to the extent that he seeks to raise a
procedural due process claim, the claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Count 6
In addition to a procedural due process claim, Lyons alleges that the ticket,
disciplinary proceedings, and his ultimate transfer to Menard violated his substantive
due process rights because he was denied exculpatory evidence and witnesses (Doc. 1,
p. 6). Although a false disciplinary report could amount to a substantive due process
violation “if the consequences are sufficiently severe,” Lyons fails to provide any details
as to the consequences that he suffered as a result of the disciplinary ticket. See Lagerstrom
v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 625 (7th Cir. 2006); Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1402-03 (7th Cir.
1994) (“Issuing false and unjustified disciplinary charges can amount to a violation of
substantive due process if the charges were in retaliation for the exercise of a
constitutional right.”). He only alleges that he was transferred to Menard and his security
level increased, but those consequences are not sufficiently severe and do not amount to
a protectible liberty interest as previously stated.3 Thus, Count 6 is also DISMISSED
without prejudice.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 2 shall proceed against Jenielle Fitzjarrald, and
Count 4 shall proceed against Lieutenant Wise and A. Casolori. All other claims and
defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Jenielle Fitzjarrald, Lieutenant
Wise, and A. Casolori: (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 Lyons. 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 Lyons, 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
3 Lyons also has not alleged that actions of Attebury and Hollis, falsely claiming that Lyons failed
to appear at the disciplinary hearing, was an act of retaliation or in response to any grievance
written by Lyons.
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 Lyons, 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(£)(2)(A).
Finally, Lyons 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: April 11, 2024
wets A oetegD
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
12
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.