Bass v. Hughs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BARNETT WILLIAM BASS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-cv-2599-MAB

ROB JEFFERIES, ANDREA PRESLEY,

BRANDON W. RIDGEWAY, MICHAEL

GIBSON, DAVID MITCHELL, JEFFERY

HOCH, and MIA E. TRAVELSTEAD,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Barnett William Bass, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at East Moline Correctional Center, brings this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at

the Murphysboro Life Skills Re-Entry Center in Murphysboro, Illinois. Bass’s original

Complaint (Doc. 1) was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim (Doc. 10).

He was granted leave to file an amended pleading. In the Amended Complaint (Doc. 11),

Bass again alleges that the defendants violated his rights in issuing, and finding him

guilty of, a disciplinary ticket.

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 the Amended Complaint, Bass makes the following allegations: While at the

Murphysboro Life Skills Re-entry Center, Dr. Wilson, a mental health doctor, called Bass

to discuss an earlier event that left him upset about his circumstances (Doc. 11, p. 4). Bass

waited for Dr. Wilson in the hallway outside of her office. Dr. Wilson instructed Bass to

step into her office, but Officer Andrea Presley interrupted and stated that they could not

meet in the office because security officers were not in the area (Id. at p. 5). Dr. Wilson

asked Presley if it was okay to meet with Bass in the “fun zone”(Id.). Officer Presley

approved of the location and Bass and the doctor proceeded to the “fun zone” for their

discussion (Id. at pp. 5, 14). Bass alleges that Officer Michael Gibson and Major Hoch were

also present when Officer Presley approved the doctor’s request to conduct the meeting

in the “fun zone” (Id. at p. 14). About thirty minutes into the meeting, Major Hoch

1 As noted in the Court’s initial Screening Order (Doc. 10, p. 2), 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

Illinois Department of Corrections’ and Wexford’s limited consent to the exercise of magistrate judge

jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandums of Understanding between the Illinois Department of

Corrections and Wexford and this Court.

interrupted, and Bass requested leave to return to his dorm room. Later that evening,

security woke Bass up in his dorm and directed him to cuff up (Id. at p. 5). He was then

abruptly transferred to Pinckneyville Correctional Center.

Bass ultimately received a disciplinary charge for disobeying a direct order

essential to the safety and security of the institution (Id. at p. 14). The ticket was related

to his presence in the hallway outside of Dr. Wilson’s office (Id. at p. 18). Bass alleges that

he went before the adjustment committee on the charge 14 hours after returning from the

emergency room after having been found unresponsive and in an altered mental state (Id.

at pp. 14-15). The adjustment committee consisted of Brandon W. Ridgeway and Mia E.

Travelstead (Id. at p. 15). The committee read the charges in Bass’s room in the healthcare

unit, and he alleges that the committee members refused him an opportunity to dispute

the charges or call his witnesses (Id. at p. 14). The lieutenant on the committee found him

guilty of the charges (Id.). Bass alleges that the evidence demonstrates that Dr. Wilson

instructed Bass to enter her office. Bass was not allowed to call the doctor because

Ridgeway and Travelstead found her testimony irrelevant (Id. at p. 15). Bass also did not

receive prior notice of the hearing. He was not allowed to provide witnesses or other

relevant material.

Bass alleges that his rights were violated prior to his transfer and that various

Illinois Administrative Codes were violated by the defendants (Id. at p. 15). He also

alleges that warden Crystal Crow approved Bass’s transport to Pinckneyville. Bass

alleges that Crow had a conflict of interest because she is related to Officer Presley by

marriage (Id.). Bass further alleges that David Mitchell approved the adjustment

committee’s decision. Bass was punished with one month C-Grade and one month B-

Grade (Id.). He was also terminated from the re-entry program (Id. at p. 18).

Discussion

Simply put, Bass again fails to state a claim for violation of his due process rights.

When an inmate raises a procedural due process claim, 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)). An inmate’s liberty interests are

protected by the Due Process Clause only insofar as a deprivation of the interest at issue

would impose an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Further,

relatively short stints in segregation do not, on their own, amount to a deprivation of a

liberty interest. Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d 754, 761 (7th Cir. 1997) (70 days not enough on

its own). Here, Bass alleges, and the attached exhibits confirm, that Bass only received

one month on C Grade and 1 month commissary restrictions as punishment for his

disciplinary ticket. He was also terminated from the Life Skills Re-entry Center. But none

of those punishments implicate a protected liberty interest. DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970

F.2d 211, 212 (7th Cir. 1992) (“prisoners possess neither liberty nor property [interest] in

their classifications and prison assignments”); Thomas, 130 F.3d at 762 n. 8 (placement on

C grade and loss of commissary privileges does not amount to a protected liberty

interest). Further, the opportunity to be assigned to a work release program does not

create a liberty or property interest implicating due process protections. DeTomaso, 970

F.2d at 212. Thus, Bass again fails to state a claim.

Disposition

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

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

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

Bass 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 Bass 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 Bass 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, Bass 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: 4/11/2024

/s/ Mark A. Beatty

MARK A. BEATTY

United States Magistrate Judge