# Griffin

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · January 16, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11242899

## Case

- **Full name:** Matthew James Griffin v. John Doe 1, Jeremiah Brown, Deedee Brookhart, John Doe 2, Latoya Hughes, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, John Doe 7, and John Doe 8
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** January 16, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11242899

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 25-cv-01303-SPM
v.

JOHN DOE 1,
JEREMIAH BROWN,
DEEDEE BROOKHART,
JOHN DOE 2,
LATOYA HUGHES,
JOHN DOE 3,
JOHN DOE 4,
JOHN DOE 5,
JOHN DOE 6,
JOHN DOE 7, and
JOHN DOE 8,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Matthew Griffin, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) who
is currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. The Complaint is now before the Court
for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, any portion of a
complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief
must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges the following: Plaintiff was transferred into the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections from New Mexico under the Interstate Correctional Compact on
August 25, 2022. (Doc. 1, p. 6). From August 25, 2022, through September 16, 2022, Plaintiff was
housed at the Northern Reception and Classification Center. (Id.). On September 16, 2022,
Plaintiff was transferred to Lawrence Correctional Center (Lawrence), where he is currently

housed. (Id. at p. 7). In November 2022, Plaintiff’s thirty-two boxes of legal documents arrived
from New Mexico. (Id.).
Plaintiff is assigned two cells at Lawrence. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He resides in cell CL-22, and
cell CL-01 is used as an office and storage area. (Id.). On December 20, 2022, Warden Brookhart
and Deputy Warden Brown suggested that Plaintiff dispose of his legal documents, and Plaintiff
declined to do so. (Id.). After Plaintiff refused, his mail began to be “attacked.” (Id.). Mailroom
staff, John Does 1-8, began withholding certain documents from Plaintiff’s incoming mail. (Id. at
p. 7). The documents confiscated and withheld were sent to Plaintiff from family and friends to be
used in Plaintiff’s various civil cases against government officials. (Id. at p. 7-8). When certain
documents were confiscated by staff, the remaining documents would be taken from the original

mailer and delivered to Plaintiff in a single repurposed envelope, effectively denying Plaintiff
access to sender and postal information printed on the original mailer. (Id. at p. 15). The senders
of the mail were never notified that certain documents from their mailings were confiscated prior
to delivery to Plaintiff. (Id. at p. 10).
Specifically, on January 23, 2023, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Deputy Warden Brown
confiscated documents from mailer 2#0068 described as a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad
Testificandum, captioned Matthew James Griffin vs Erik A. Hooks, No 3:19-cv-00135-MJR
(USDC WDNC).” (Doc. 1, p. 10). Mailroom staff issued Plaintiff a notice indicating that the
documents were unauthorized items. (Id.). Citing to “LAW 0178,” the notice falsely stated that the

petition was “‘blank paper’ and ‘½ printed,’ which constitutes writing material.” (Id. at p. 10-11).
Warden Brookhart and Director Hughes approved the confiscation of the documents. (Id. at p. 11).
On March 7, 2023, Defendants John Doe 1, John Doe 3, and Deputy Warden Brown
confiscated documents from mailers 2#0070 and 2#0071, and the mailers themselves. (Doc. 1, p.
12). The documents confiscated were from cases “Griffin vs Bryant, No. 5:17-ct-03173 (USDC-

EDNC)” and “Griffin vs Moon, No. (USDC-ED Cal.),” and a copy of an Illinois grievance tracking
log. (Id.). Plaintiff was issued a single notice indicating that the documents taken from both mailers
were unauthorized items. The reason for confiscation on the notice form was “LAW 0178 appears
to be documents and mailers.” (Id.). The confiscation was approved by Warden Brookhart and
Director Hughes. (Id.).
On March 10, 2023, John Doe 1, John Doe 4, and Deputy Warden Brown confiscated
documents from mailers 2#0072A, 2#0072B, and 2#0072C. (Doc. 1, p. 13). The documents
confiscated included (1) a copy of an Illinois grievance tracking log; (2) documents from “Griffin
vs Hooks, No. 3:19-cv-00135-MR (USDC-WDNC);” (3) pages from Plaintiff’s master index of
legal documents; and (4) judicial records from PACER. (Id.). Plaintiff received a single notice

form for the confiscation of the documents from all three mailers, and the remaining documents
were combined into a single envelope. (Id. at p. 15). Warden Brookhart and Director Hughes
approved the confiscation of the documents. (Id.).
Sometime between March 11, 2023, and April 2, 2023, John Doe 1, John Doe 5, and
Deputy Warden Brown confiscated documents from mailer 2#0073. (Doc. 1, p. 16). The
documents taken from mailer 2#0073 included (1) a page from a memorandum of law from
“Griffin vs Moun, No. (USDC ED Cal.);” (2) a Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(j)
letter; and (3) pages from Doc. 12 in case “Griffin vs Daves, No. 22-6779, USCA 4.” (Id.). Again,
the mailer was taken, and the remaining documents were placed in a used envelope. (Id.). Plaintiff

did not receive a notice form for the confiscation of these documents. (Id.).
On March 29, 2023, John Doe 1, John Doe 6, and Deputy Warden Brown confiscated
documents from mailer 2 #0078, part A. (Doc. 1, p. 17). The documents confiscated contained the
USPS tracking information for the 32 boxes containing Plaintiff’s legal documents that were sent
from New Mexico to Illinois. (Id.). The original mailer was not given to Plaintiff. (Id.). The notice

given to Plaintiff indicates that the reason for confiscation was LAW 0178, unauthorized items,
“writing supplies.” (Id.). Warden Brookhart and Director Hughes approved the confiscation of
these documents. (Id.).
On March 28, 2023, John Doe 1, John Doe 7, and Deputy Warden Brown confiscated
documents from mailers 2#0075, 2#0076, and 2#0077. (Doc. 1, p. 18). The documents confiscated
included (1) a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum; (2) documents relating to
certificate of service; and (3) a judicial opinion from “Griffin v. Bryant, 56 F. 4th 328 (4th Cir.
2022).” (Id.). Plaintiff received one notice form for the confiscation of documents from all three
mailers. (Id.). The reason for confiscation was, again, “writing supplies.” (Id.). Plaintiff received
the remaining documents together in a single envelope. (Id.). Warden Brookhart and Director

Hughes approved the confiscation of these documents. (Id.).
On March 31, 2023, John Doe 1, John Doe 8, and Deputy Warden Brown confiscated
documents from mailer 2#0079. (Doc. 1, p. 19). The documents confiscated included (1) a judicial
opinion from “Griffin v. Riveland, 148 F.R.D. 266 (E.D. Wash. 1994);” (2) a PACER docket sheet
from “Griffin v. Bryant (USDC-EDNC);” and (3) pages from Doc. 163 from “Griffin v. Bryant
(USDC-EDNC).” (Id.). Plaintiff was not given the original mailer, and the remaining documents
were delivered to Plaintiff in a repurposed envelope. (Id.). Plaintiff received a notice form but the
reason for confiscating the documents is unclear. (Id.). Warden Brookhart and Director Hughes
approved the confiscation of these documents. (Id.).

Plaintiff used the grievance process at Lawerence to request that all documents, envelopes,
and mailers be retained for judicial review. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff’s grievances were denied by
Warden Brookhart and Director Hughs. (Id.).
DISCUSSION
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations and his articulation of his claims, the Court designates the

following counts:
Count 1: First Amendment claim against John Doe 1, Brown, Brookhart, John
Doe 2, Hughes, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6,
John Doe 7, and John Doe 8 for intentionally withholding Plaintiff’s
incoming mail.

Count 2: First/Fourteenth Amendment access to courts claim against John
Doe 1, Brown, Brookhart, John Doe 2, Hughes, John Doe 3, John
Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, John Doe 7, and John Doe 8 for
intentionally withholding Plaintiff’s incoming mail.

The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is mentioned in the
Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice
as inadequately pled under the Twombly1 pleading standard.
Count 1
“The First Amendment protects a prisoner’s interest in his incoming and outgoing mail
correspondence.” Felton v. Brown, 129 F. 4th 999, 1011 (7th Cir. 2025) (citing Van den Bosch v.
Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785 (7th Cir. 2011)). This interest, however, can be lawfully restricted.
“Incoming mail is governed by the test announced in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 (1987),
which asks whether the prison’s censorship is ‘reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests.’” Id. (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89)).
Plaintiff claims that on at least seven separate occasions, Defendants, acting usually

1 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
pursuant to LAW 0178, wrongly and intentionally deemed documents in his incoming mail as
“unauthorized items,” specifically, “writing material,” and confiscated the documents. (Doc. 1, p.
10-11). He states that LAW 0178 defines “writing material” as “paper, envelopes, pens, pencils,
stamps, etc.” and argues that “etc.” can mean anything, resulting in prohibiting receipt of judicial

petitions on printed paper. (Id. at p. 11). Plaintiff further contends that the taking of the documents
was “content based” and “constituted censorship and the denial of the right to communicate.” (Id.
at p. 19). At the pleading stage, Plaintiff has alleged enough facts establishing that the confiscation
of his documents was not reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest and violated his
rights under the First Amendment. Count 1 will proceed against John Doe 1, Brown, Brookhart,
John Doe 2, Hughes, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, John Doe 7, and John Doe
8.
Count 2
Plaintiff asserts that the documents confiscated by Defendants “related in whole or in part
to civil litigation against prison officials.” (Doc. 1, p. 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19).

Prisoners are entitled to meaningful access to the courts under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments. See Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 291 (7th Cir. 2004). A prisoner’s ability to send
and receive “legal mail,” therefore, is entitled to greater protection “because of the potential for
interfering with a prisoner’s access to the courts.” Jenkins v. Huntley, 235 F. App’x 374, 376 (7th
Cir. 2007) (citing Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 685-6 (7th Cir. 2005)). “A prisoner’s
access to the courts may be compromised, for example, when prison officials read private
communications between the prisoner and his lawyer about the prisoner’s litigation against those
officials.” Delgado v. Hughes, No. 24-1407, 2024 WL 3812287, at *1 (7th Cir. 2024) (citing
Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 802–03, 805 (7th Cir. 2010)).

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for denial of access to courts based on the opening and
confiscating of his incoming mail. First, the documents described do not appear to be “legal mail.”
The term “legal mail,” “does not include everything an incarcerated person sends or receives
related to a lawsuit.” Corbeil v. Waushara Cnty. Jail, No. 25-cv-768-pp, 2025 WL 3171303, at *3
(E.D. Wisc. 2025)(citing Kaufman, 419 F. 3d at 686)). “Public documents and ‘routine and

nonsensitive’ documents do not implicate the right of access because reading them would not give
prison officials insights into a prisoner’s legal strategy or interfere with confidentiality.”
Sovereignty Joeseph Helmueller Sovereign Freeman v. Wilson, No. 23-1962, 2023 WL 8274582,
at *2 (7th Cir. 2023) (citing Guajardo-Palma, 622 F. 3d at 804-806)). Here, the documents, even
the habeas petitions, were sent by family and friends and were copies of documents already on
public dockets or publicly available. The act of opening Plaintiff’s mail outside his presence,
therefore, could not violate his right to access the courts.
Second, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient facts from which the Court could plausibly
infer that Defendants hindered him in his pursuit of any legal matter because certain documents
were confiscated. To plead a denial of access to courts claim under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct impeded his ability to pursue
legal claims and that he suffered “actual injury as a result.” See Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664,
671 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific legal claim that he has been
prejudiced by the alleged confiscation of his mail sent by family and friends. He states that some
of the documents were from cases he is currently or have previously litigated and are generally
“related to civil litigation.” He does not, however, provide any facts to support the conclusion that
“[D]efendants’ conduct prejudice[d] a potentially meritorious challenge to [Plaintiff’s] conviction,
sentence, or conditions of confinement…” Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, Count 2 is dismissed.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons set forth above, the Complaint survives preliminary review pursuant to
Section 1915A. COUNT 1 shall proceed against John Doe 1, Jeremiah Brown, DeeDee
Brookhart, John Doe 2, Latoya Hughes, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, John

Doe 7, and John Doe 8. COUNT 2 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court SHALL prepare for Defendants Brown, Brookhart, Hughes, and
John Does 1-8 (once identified) the following: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to
Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is
DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to
the defendants’ place of employment. If a defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of
Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent,
the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on the defendant, and the Court
will require the defendant pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with the defendant’s current work address, or, if not known,
his last known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as directed
above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be retained only
by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the
Clerk.
Defendants are ORDERED to file an appropriate responsive pleading to the Complaint
in a timely manner and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant
to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants only need to respond to the issues stated in

this Merit Review Order.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for
leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs or give security
for the same, the applicant and (if applicable) his or her attorney were deemed to have entered into
a stipulation that any unpaid costs taxed against the applicant shall be paid from any recovery

secured in this action.
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk
of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 14
days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 16, 2026

s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your lawsuit and
serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved, the defendants will
enter their appearance and file an Answer to the complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from
the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers, but it is entirely possible that it will take
90 days or more. When all of the defendants have filed Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling
Order containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, to give the
defendants notice 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
any evidence to the Court at his time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11242899. Public record. Not legal advice.