Sharp v. Greene

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

KEYSHON SHARP, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:24-cv-03272-SEM

)

JOHN DOE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, presently

incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center, pursues claims for

alleged violations of his constitutional rights under the First

Amendment during his imprisonment at Western Illinois

Correctional Center.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2024, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 8)

dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was

allowed leave to amend, and on January 8, 2025, the Court entered

an Order (Doc. 10) finding that Plaintiff’s amended complaint failed

to state a claim. The Court allowed Plaintiff time to replead again,

and, on January 13, 2025, entered a Text Order at Plaintiff’s

request, clarifying the law as it understands it regarding Plaintiff’s

claim.

Plaintiff filed a timely motion for leave to amend (Doc. 14)

which the Court granted on March 26, 2025, and found Plaintiff’s

second amended complaint (Doc. 16) failed to state a claim. Finding

further amendment would be futile, the Court dismissed this action

for failure to state a claim. Order (Doc. 15). Judgment was entered

the following day.

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

On April 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

(Doc. 19). Plaintiff filed his motion within 28 days of the entry of

judgment, so it is appropriate to review the motion pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Carter v. City of Alton, 922

F.3d 824, 826 n.1 (7th Cir. 2019). Altering or amending a judgment

under Rule 59(e) is permissible when there is newly discovered

evidence or there has been a manifest error of law or fact. Rule 59(e)

requires that the movant clearly establish one of the

aforementioned grounds for relief. Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433

F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006).

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is granted. For the

reasons below in the merit review portion of this order, the Court

finds that it would be a manifest error of law to dismiss this action

at the pleadings stage. Plaintiff plausibly alleges a violation of his

First Amendment rights, so the case should proceed to service and

discovery.

III. MERIT REVIEW

The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and through

such process identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or

the entire action if warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A claim is legally

insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from

a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

The Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally

construing them in the plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d

645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). Conclusory statements and labels are

insufficient—the facts alleged must “state a claim for relief that is

plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422

(7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

A. Facts

The Court commends Plaintiff for clearly, legibly, and

efficiently presenting his allegations and exhibits.

Plaintiff sues John Doe Correctional Officer Mail Room

Personnel and John Doe Correctional Officer Internal Affairs/Intel

Personnel.

Plaintiff alleges that he was represented by a criminal defense

lawyer regarding a postconviction petition attacking his conviction

in Illinois state court. In early October 2023, that lawyer sent

Plaintiff a transcript of a hearing, but Plaintiff did not receive it. The

lawyer then sent another copy which Plaintiff did not receive. The

packages were not returned to the attorney by the postal service.

The attorney then sent Plaintiff a third copy, by priority mail,

in November 2023. The tracking receipt is dated November 9, 2023,

in Chicago Illinois. Plaintiff alleges the prison promptly received the

package, but that he (Plaintiff) did not receive it directly. Plaintiff

filed a grievance seeking his package on December 6 – now nearly

two months after this legal mail was initially sent to him. Grievance

counselor V. Wiewel responded that mailroom staff reported that

they did not have any legal mail for Plaintiff in their possession. The

next day, December 7, Plaintiff received the item of legal mail. It had

been opened outside his presence. The envelope was plainly marked

“legal mail.” Plaintiff alleges the envelope that the transcript was

sent to him in was taped to another, newer, envelope.

Plaintiff filed additional grievances regarding this situation. In

response to one of these grievances Counselor Wiewel stated that

Plaintiff’s legal mail had been opened by Internal Affairs who were

reviewing it outside the mailroom, causing the delay.

Plaintiff alleges that his criminal defense counsel was “time

constrained” and wanted to discuss litigation strategy with him. His

attorney was faced with a decision to either file a motion to

reconsider in the trial court or file a notice of appeal. Plaintiff

alleges that due to the delays in his receipt of the court transcript,

he was unable to timely discuss strategy with his lawyer, so the

motion to reconsider could not be pursued, so a notice of appeal

was filed instead. Plaintiff alleges the appeal is under consideration

presently. Plaintiff believes he would have been successful on the

motion for reconsideration had it been filed. Drawing plausible

inferences from Plaintiff’s allegations, in addition to losing the

ability to pursue a meritorious reconsideration motion, he incurred

additional legal expenses due to the different strategy necessitated

by the delay in his receipt of his legal mail.

B. Analysis

“An inmate’s legal mail … is entitled to greater protections

because of the potential for interference with his right of access to

the courts.” Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 685–86 (7th

Cir. 2005). “Thus, when 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.” Id. Interception of

a prisoner’s confidential communications with his lawyer are

subject to a harmless-error analysis. Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson,

622 F.3d 801, 806 (7th Cir. 2010) (stating that the current system

makes it “unlikely that isolated interferences with attorney-client

communications in prisoner cases will block the prisoner’s access

to meaningful justice”). To proceed on an access-to-courts claim, a

plaintiff must “allege in his complaint that the alleged deprivations

have caused him actual injury ….” Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664,

671 (7th Cir. 2009); Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801,

806 (7th Cir. 2010).

Drawing all plausible inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, his

allegations support a First Amendment claim against John Doe

correctional officer(s) and internal affairs officer(s) who interfered

with and delayed his receipt of his legal mail. The Court will add as

a Defendant, and serve process on, Warden Brittany Greene, for

purposes of answering the complaint and responding to discovery to

be propounded by Plaintiff so that Plaintiff can determine the

identities of the Doe Defendants. Plaintiff should wait to send any

discovery requests until defense counsel has entered their

appearance in the case, so he can send his discovery requests to

defense counsel.

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [19] is GRANTED.

Clerk to reopen case, vacate the Judgment [17], and

vacate the Merit Review Order [15]. Plaintiff's Motion

for Status [20] is MOOT.

2. The Court finds Plaintiff states plausible First

Amendment claims against Doe Defendants. Clerk to

add as a Defendant, and serve, Brittany Greene, Warden

at Western Illinois Correctional Center, who is to file an

answer as stated below, and will respond to discovery to

assist in identifying the Doe Defendants. Once the

Court’s Scheduling Order is entered Plaintiff will have a

deadline to move to substitute named individuals for

the Doe Defendants and failure to do so will subject the

case to dismissal. Any additional claims and parties

shall not be included in the case, except at the Court's

discretion on motion and for good cause shown, or

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, as no

other claims are plausibly alleged.

3. The case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff must

wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants

before filing any motions, to give notice to the

defendants 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 evidence to the

court at this time, unless otherwise directed.

4. The court will attempt service on the defendants by

mailing each defendant a waiver of service. If a

defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service to

the clerk within thirty days after the waiver is sent, the

court will take appropriate steps to effect formal service

through the U.S. Marshals service on that defendant and

will require that defendant to pay the full costs of

formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(d)(2).

5. As to a defendant who no longer works at the address

provided by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that

defendant worked while at that address shall provide to

the clerk said defendant's current work address, or, if

not known, said defendant's forwarding address. This

information shall be used only for effectuating service.

Documentation of forwarding addresses shall be

retained only by the clerk and shall not be maintained

in the public docket nor disclosed by the clerk.

6. The defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of

the date the waiver is sent by the clerk. A motion to

dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all

defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The

answer and subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues

and claims stated in this order. In general, an answer

sets forth the defendants' positions. The court does not

rule on the merits of those positions unless and until a

motion is filed by the defendants. Therefore, no

response to the answer is necessary or will be

considered. After the defendants have been served and

have answered, the court will enter an order setting

discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.

7. This district uses electronic filing, so after defense

counsel has filed an appearance, defense counsel will

automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or

other paper filed by the plaintiff with the clerk. Plaintiff

does not need to mail to defense counsel copies of

motions and other papers that the plaintiff has filed

with the clerk. However, this does not apply to

discovery requests and responses. Discovery requests

and responses are NOT filed with the clerk. The plaintiff

must mail discovery requests and responses directly to

counsel for the appropriate defendant. Discovery

requests or responses sent to the clerk will be returned

unfiled unless they are attached to and the subject of a

motion to compel. Discovery does not begin until the

court has entered a scheduling order, which will explain

the discovery process in more detail.

8. Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to

depose the plaintiff.

9. The plaintiff shall immediately notify the court, in

writing, of any change in address and telephone

number. Plaintiff's failure to notify the court of a

change in mailing address or phone number will result

in dismissal of this lawsuit.

Entered this 21st day of July, 2025.

s/Sue E. Myerscough

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE