Walsh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

URBANA DIVISION

ANTHONY WALSH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 2:25-cv-02233-SEM-DJQ

)

FELICIA ADKINS, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

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

incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center, asserts that prison

officials violated his constitutional rights via their failure to grant

him admittance to an educational program. He also asserts that his

constitutional rights were violated in the handling of his grievances

about the same issue.

A. Motion to Request Counsel

Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 3) is before the

Court.

The Court undertakes a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the

plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or has been

effectively precluded from doing so, and, if so, (2) given the difficulty

of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself.

Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir 2007).

Plaintiff attaches a list of two lawyers he contacted shortly

before filing this lawsuit. Plaintiff indicates that when he filed that

document (on August 21, 2025) he was awaiting response. He also

does not indicate the nature of the requests that he sent to those

two lawyers, such as a specific description of the claim he seeks

legal help with. Plaintiff has not shown that he made a reasonable

attempt to find a lawyer, or was prevented from doing so, before

seeking Court assistance. Plaintiff must do so before requesting

court assistance. This is normally accomplished by contacting

several civil rights attorneys regarding the specific allegations in

this specific case and requesting representation in this lawsuit as to

those specific allegations, then providing the Court with copies of

such letters sent, as well as any responses received, in support of

any future request for Court assistance in finding a volunteer

lawyer. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653-655 (7th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff may renew his request for Court assistance with finding an

attorney if he undertakes a reasonable search on his own as stated

above, and the Court will consider the request at that time.

B. Merit Review Order

The case is before the Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s

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

through such process identify and dismiss any legally insufficient

allegations. 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).

Plaintiff names Warden Felicia Adkins, Warden McKenna

Wenzel, Counselor Andrew Smarts, Grievance Officer Tom Hadler,

the Administrative Review Board Chairman, Clinical Services Claire

Mullis, and Education Facility Administrator Sterling Montgomery.

The Northwestern University Prison Education Program offers

bachelor’s degrees to incarcerated students within the Illinois

Department of Corrections. The program is “government funded.”

There is an administrative process to ensure equity and fairness.

The Education Facility Administrator of each IDOC institution is

tasked with providing, collecting, reviewing, and forwarding

program applications to Program Director Professor Jennifer

Lackey, whose staff then evaluate the applications.

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff handed his application to IDOC

staffer Kenneth Phillips. Phillips told Plaintiff that Education

Facility Administrator Sterling Montgomery received Plaintiff’s

application. The application deadline was April 15. If accepted into

the program by Northwestern University, individuals in custody

would be transferred to Sheridan Correctional Center for the fall

semester, which began in September 2024.

Plaintiff, who did not receive a response to his application,

began investigating the matter in August 2024. He received “no

cooperation” from Defendant Montgomery, so he contacted

Professor Lackey. On October 17, 2024, Plaintiff was informed that

Defendant Montgomery misled Professor Lackey regarding Plaintiff’s

application. Montgomery told Lacky that he chose not to process

Plaintiff’s application, stating that Plaintiff could not apply for the

program 1) because he was “an EJP student” and “DACC student,”1

and 2) Plaintiff could not participate in multiple programs at once.

Plaintiff is not an EJP student and was not a DACC student at

the time he submitted his application. Additionally, the

Northwestern Program states that applicants cannot be involved in

more than one “degree offering program,” yet in fact Defendant

Montgomery processed multiple applications from other individuals

in custody who were involved in two or three educational programs,

including EJP, EIU, and DACC students.

In December 2024 Plaintiff learned that his application was

emailed to Professor Lackey on October 16, 2024, the same day that

Lackey informed Plaintiff that she was going to contact Defendant

Montgomery about what had happened to Plaintiff’s application. So,

Plaintiff asserts, Montgomery had apparently emailed the

application to Professor Lackey despite his earlier assertion that

Plaintiff was ineligible to apply.

1 These appear to refer to the Education Justice Project at the University of

Illinois, and Danville Area Community College, respectively.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lackey “engaged in

conspiratorial practices and potential misappropriations of funds by

neglecting to fulfill his official duties for the government funded

program at issue. Plaintiff asserts that “this is a pervasive practice

by [Montgomery]….”

Plaintiff further alleges that Grievance Counselor Smarts

conspired under the guidance of his boss Ms. Mullis by not

investigating or interviewing all parties to determine the veracity of

Plaintiff’s grievance claim, despite acknowledging that the issue was

a clear violation. Grievance Officer Tom Hadler also conspired to not

hold Montgomery, Smarts, and Mullis accountable by refusing to

interview witnesses or investigate Plaintiff’s claim, despite

acknowledging that Plaintiff’s application was not properly

processed. The Administrative Review Board “explained the

conspiracy to cover for their colleagues,” denying Plaintiff’s

grievance as meritless. Plaintiff also sent a copy of his grievance,

and a letter, to IDOC Director Latoya Hughes, and Chief of

Programs and Support Services Jennifer Parrack and received no

response.

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim for a violation of the

Constitution or laws of the United States.

Unawarded program sentence credits. Good-time credits

that have yet to be awarded or that are entirely discretionary are

not liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause.

Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644–45 (7th Cir. 2001); see

also Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2000)

(holding that a “deprivation of the opportunity to earn good time

credits . . . is not a constitutional violation”); Antonelli v. Sheahan,

81 F.3d 1422, 1431 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[A prisoner] has no due

process interest in the opportunity to earn good time credits.”).

Here, Plaintiff was not entitled to participate in the educational

program through Northwestern. Plaintiff’s allegations support the

conclusion that Montgomery mishandled Plaintiff’s application,

misstated Plaintiff’s eligibility, and played favorites for other

applicants to the Northwestern program. These allegations plausibly

indicate violations of the educational program policy.

The Court understands Plaintiff’s frustration over this series of

events and encourages Plaintiff’s pursuit of educational programs.

But Plaintiff’s allegations related to his application to the

Northwestern program do not plausibly indicate a violation of a

right secured under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.

Grievance handling. Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants

Felicia Adkins, McKenna Wenzel, Andrew Smarts, Tom Hadler, the

Administrative Review Board Chairman, and Claire Mullis, based on

the handling and ultimate denial of Plaintiff’s grievances, also fail to

state a claim.

State grievance procedures do not create substantive liberty

interests protected by due process, nor is there a First Amendment

right to any such procedure. See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950,

953 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Prison grievance procedures are not mandated

by the First Amendment and do not by their very existence create

interests protected by the Due Process Clause, and so the alleged

mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievances by persons who otherwise

did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no

claim.”); Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 772 n.3 (7th Cir.

2008) (“[T]here is no substantive liberty interest in a bona fide

prison grievance process ….”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [3] is

DENIED without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff's Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [5] is

MOOT. Plaintiff paid the filing fee.

3. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not

state a claim for relief in his Complaint. Plaintiff is

allowed 21 days to amend his complaint, if he believes

he can in good faith state a claim consistent with the

standards discussed in this Order.

Entered this 15th day of December, 2025.

s/Sue E. Myerscough

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE