Bates-Smith v. Smiley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JEVON BATES-SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:25-CV-558-GSL-JEM

SMILEY, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Jevon Bates-Smith, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint against

Warden Smiley and the Westville Correctional Facility alleging that he is not receiving

his legal mail. ECF 1. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se

complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)

(quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Bates-Smith alleges that there have been delays in giving him his legal mail and

these delays could result in a federal habeas case being dismissed. Bates-Smith named

the Westville Correctional Facility as a defendant, but it is a building, not a “person” or

policy-making body that can be sued for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012). Bates-Smith also

named Warden Smiley as a defendant, but Bates-Smith does not allege that Warden

Smiley is personally involved in causing the mail to be delayed. There is no general

respondeat superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 594

(7th Cir. 2009). “[P]ublic employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for

anyone else’s.” Id. at 596. Supervisors can also be held liable if they “know about the

conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye for fear of what they

might see.” Matthews v. City of East St. Louis, 675 F.3d 703, 708 (7th Cir. 2012). The

complaint, however, does not allege that Warden Smiley knew about, facilitated,

approved, condoned, or turned a blind eye to the alleged mail delays. Thus, Bates-

Smith has not stated a claim against either defendant named in this action.

“The Supreme Court has recognized that prisoners have protected First

Amendment interests in both sending and receiving mail.” Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778,

782 (7th Cir. 1999). “Prison regulations or practices that affect a prisoner’s legal mail are

of particular concern because of the potential for interference with a prisoner’s right of

access to the courts.” Id. “Prison regulations or practices affecting a prisoner’s receipt of

non-legal mail also implicate First Amendment rights and must be reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests.” Id. “However, merely alleging an isolated delay or

some other relatively short-term, non content based disruption in the delivery of inmate

reading materials will not support […] a cause of action grounded upon the First

Amendment.” Id.

Publicly filed court orders are not entitled to heightened constitutional protection

in prisons. Constitutionally protected legal mail is defined as letters that are marked

with an attorney’s name and that provide a warning that the letter is legal

mail. Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 686 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[W]hen a prison

receives a letter for an inmate that is marked with an attorney’s name and a warning

that the letter is legal mail, officials potentially violate the inmate’s rights if they open

the letter outside of the inmate’s presence.”). Bates-Smith has not identified any

document that qualifies as legal mail.

Prisoners are also entitled to meaningful access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430

U.S. 817, 824 (1977). The right of access to the courts is the right of an individual,

whether free or incarcerated, to obtain access to the courts without undue interference.

Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 291 (7th Cir. 2004). The right of individuals to pursue legal

redress for claims that have a reasonable basis in law or fact is protected by the First

Amendment right to petition and the Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due

process. Id. (citations omitted). Denial of access to the courts must be intentional;

“simple negligence will not support a claim that an official has denied an individual of

access to the courts.” Id. at 291 n.11 (citing Kincaid v. Vail, 969 F.2d 594, 602 (7th Cir.

1992)). To establish a violation of the right to access the courts, an inmate must show

that unjustified acts or conditions (by defendants acting under color of law) hindered

the inmate’s efforts to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim, Nance v. Vieregge, 147 F.3d

589, 590 (7th Cir. 1998), and that actual injury (or harm) resulted. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.

343, 351 (1996) (holding that Bounds did not eliminate the actual injury requirement as a

constitutional prerequisite to a prisoner asserting lack of access to the courts); see also

Pattern Civil Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit, 8.02 (rev. 2017). In other words,

“the mere denial of access to a prison law library or to other legal materials is not itself a

violation of a prisoner’s rights; his right is to access the courts,” and only if the

defendants’ conduct prejudices a potentially meritorious legal claim has the right been

infringed. Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006). It cannot be plausibly

inferred from the allegations in Bates-Smith’s complaint that the handling of his mail

prejudiced a potentially meritorious legal claim. Thus, even if Bates-Smith had named a

defendant who was personally responsible for the mail delays described in his

complaint, he has not alleged facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that his right

to access the courts has been violated.

This complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. If Bates-

Smith believes he can state a claim based on (and consistent with) the events described

in this complaint, he may file an amended complaint because “[t]he usual standard in

civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at

least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726,

738 (7th Cir. 2018). To file an amended complaint, he needs to write this cause number

on a Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20) Prisoner Complaint form1 which is available from his

law library. He needs to write the word “Amended” on the first page above the title

“Prisoner Complaint” and send it to the court after he properly completes the form.

1 Pursuant to N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-6, Bates-Smith is required to use this form..

For these reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS Jevon Bates-Smith until August 1, 2025, to file an amended

complaint; and

(2) CAUTIONS Jevon Bates-Smith that, if he does not respond by the deadline,

this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the

current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.

SO ORDERED on June 27, 2025

/s/Gretchen S. Lund

JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT