The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES DOUGLAS YODER,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 22-cv-2004-NJR
PRINCE, OWENS, DANIEL MONTI,
ROB JEFFREYS, JOHN DOE
COMMISSARY COMMITTEE
MEMBER, LATOYA HUGHES (official
capacity only), and
MARGARET MADOLE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Charles Douglas Yoder, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights
while at Shawnee Correctional Center. This matter is currently before the Court on two
motions to clarify filed by Yoder (Docs. 39, 44).
Yoder’s Complaint, alleging equal protection violations in denying him access to
a “body puff,” was initially dismissed for failure to state a claim (Doc. 17). Yoder
appealed the dismissal, and the Seventh Circuit found that Yoder adequately stated an
equal protection claim for the policy limiting the sale of body puffs to transgender
inmates (Doc. 32-3). On remand, the Court designated a single equal protection claim for
instituting a prison policy limiting the sale of body puffs to transgender inmates and
preventing Yoder from obtaining a body puff, in violation of both the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Illinois State Constitution (Doc. 33,
p. 2). Yoder was allowed to proceed on his claim against Commissary Supply Supervisor
Prince, Corrections Supply Supervisor Owens, Daniel Monti, Rob Jeffreys, and John Doe
State Commissary Committee Members (Id. at p. 2). Latoya Hughes was added in her
official capacity to implement any injunctive relief awarded (Id.). But Yoder’s claim
against the grievance officials, including Jonathan Winters and Kim Johnson, was
dismissed for failure to state a claim. And any claims against IDOC were dismissed
because IDOC is not a “person” for purposes of Section 1983 (Id. at p. 3).
Yoder’s motions seek to clarify the Court’s findings in the Section 1915A review
order (Doc. 33). Yoder’s first motion asks the Court to clarify whether any state law claims
were possibly pled in his Complaint. Yoder fails to point to any state law claims; instead,
he asks the Court to accept any possible state law claims implicated by his allegations.
Yoder notes that he does not know what state laws may be implicated, but “there must
be some state law claims” that the Court may find in the factual allegations (Id. at p. 2).
Although prisoner complaints are liberally construed, the Complaint must “plead
some facts that suggest a right to relief that is beyond the speculative level.” Dorsey v.
Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 1101 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304, 309 (7th Cir.
2015)). Despite Yoder’s contention that the Court should identify possible state law claims
implicated by his factual allegations, the Court is not required to “to craft legal arguments
and perform legal research on the litigant’s behalf.” Watson v. Sward, Case No. 23-2636,
2024 WL 2105470 at * 1 (7th Cir. May 10, 2024). See also Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544,
545 (7th Cir. 2001). Here, Yoder’s Complaint adequately alleged a violation of his equal
protection rights under both the United States Constitution and the Illinois State
Constitution. Although Yoder’s Complaint asked the Court to find any other state
violations that it deemed appropriate, Yoder failed to plead any other claims. Again, the
Court is not required to review the pleading for all potential claims Yoder could have
raised. Although he lists claims that he believes might have been implicated by his
allegations, including discrimination and equal protection laws, the Court allowed him
to proceed on an Illinois equal protection claim for discrimination. Yoder’s Complaint
fails to point to any other state law that might be implicated by his allegations. Thus, his
first motion to clarify (Doc. 39) is DENIED.
Yoder’s second motion (Doc. 44) requests clarification on the status of IDOC as a
defendant. Yoder noted that the threshold order found that IDOC was not a person for
purposes of Section 1983 and was not a proper party for monetary damages, but Yoder
also noted that counsel recently entered his appearance for IDOC (Doc. 41). Yoder is
correct that IDOC is no longer a party to this case. The Court found that Yoder failed to
state a claim against IDOC. Although not initially terminated on the docket, IDOC was
dismissed from the case (Doc. 33, p. 3) and has now been terminated from the docket.
Thus, Yoder’s second motion to clarify (Doc. 44) is DENIED as moot.
Finally, the Court also clarifies the status of any potential claim against Margaret
Madole. Yoder’s Complaint identified Madole as a member of the Administrative Review
Board (“ARB”) (Doc. 1, p. 3). His statement of claim alleged that numerous defendants
denied a grievance related to his claims, including the ARB, but Yoder did not specifically
identify Madole as one of those officials (Id. at p. 6). In reviewing Yoder’s claims, the
Court listed Madole as a defendant in the case caption and dismissed all grievance
officials, but failed to include Madole in the list of grievance officials who were dismissed
(Doc. 33, p. 2). The Court now CLARIFIES that any potential claim against Margaret
Madole is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Margaret Madole
was a member of the ARB (Doc. 1, p. 3), and Yoder’s Complaint alleges that the ARB
denied his grievance (Id. at p. 6). An attached grievance also notes that Madole signed the
denial (Id. at p. 17). But as the Court previously stated in dismissing the claims against
the other grievance officials, the simple mishandling or denial of a grievance does not
state a claim (Doc. 33, p. 2). See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011). Thus,
to the extent Yoder alleged that Madole is liable for denying his grievance about his access
to a body puff, the claim against her is now DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 26, 2024 □□
wtp oentngl
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge