Vaughn

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

URBANA DIVISION

ERIC VAUGHN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:26-cv-02089-JEH

JENNIFER ORVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Merit Review Order

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at Danville

Correctional Center (“Danville”), filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1). This case is before the Court for a

merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

I

In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,

liberally construing them in Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-

51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.

Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its

face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require

“detailed factual allegations,” it requires “more than an unadorned, the-

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 F. App’x 588,

589 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

II

Plaintiff files suit against Warden Felicia Adkins, Counselor Jennifer Orvis,

Supervisor of Clinical Services Claire Mullis, and Illinois Department of

Corrections (“IDOC”) Director Latoya Hughes.

Plaintiff states his mother passed away on July 16, 2023. Plaintiff alleges he

requested a furlough to attend her funeral in person, but Defendant Warden

Adkins arbitrarily denied his request, causing emotional distress, sleeplessness,

and anguish. According to Plaintiff’s grievance, which he attached to his

Complaint, Plaintiff was permitted to attend the funeral by video. (Doc. 1-1 at p.

2).

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Counselor Orvis “asserted to Plaintiff on 7-14-23

that his history of 200 level tickets has caused the denial for furlough. [Plaintiff’s]

mother died 7-16-23, so the assertion that a CHAMP entry on computer was made

on 7-14-23 at 9:33 AM. This is impossible since Plaintiff’s mother passed away 2

days later. Causing additional anguish and stress.” (Doc. 1 at p. 5).

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Mullis is the supervisor of Clinical Services.

Plaintiff states he is suing Defendant Mullis in her official capacity. Plaintiff alleges

Defendant Mullis’ decision to deny his furlough request has contributed to his

stress and emotional anguish.

III

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants Adkins, Orvis,

Hughes, and Mullis. “Due process considerations, if applicable at all in this

context, are satisfied if [Defendant] merely informs [Plaintiff] of the reason why

his furlough request was denied.” Wyre v. Cross, No. 14-CV-418-DRH, 2014 WL

1389658, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2014). Plaintiff alleges Defendant Warden Adkins

arbitrarily denied his furlough request to attend his mother’s funeral in person.

Plaintiff claims Defendant Counselor Orvis informed him his request was denied

due to his disciplinary history.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Orvis told him his furlough request was denied

on July 14, 2023; however, Plaintiff’s mother passed away on July 16, 2023. It is

unclear from Plaintiff’s Complaint what Defendant Orvis’ involvement was in the

alleged denial of his furlough request. Based on the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s

Complaint, Defendant Orvis was the Grievance Counselor who responded to

Plaintiff’s grievance regarding the denial of his furlough request. In response to

his grievance, Defendant Orvis stated: “The individual’s funeral furlough was

denied due to history of 200 level tickets.” (Doc. 1-1 at p. 1). In Gevas v. Mitchell,

the Seventh Circuit explained being involved in the grievance process alone is

insufficient to establish personal involvement. 492 F. App'x 654, 660 (7th Cir. 2012);

see also Hemphill v. Obaisi, 2019 WL 4345360, at *5 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (finding no

violation where defendants’ “only involvement in Hemphill’s case was related to

the grievance process,” and there was no evidence that defendants “were

personally involved in his medical treatment or any alleged delay”).

Plaintiff named IDOC Director Hughes as a Defendant, but he did not

include any specific allegations against her in his Complaint. “Section 1983 creates

a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus,

liability does not attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated in

a constitutional deprivation.” Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff states he is suing Defendant Mullis in her official capacity as the

supervisor of Clinical Services. It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to hold

Defendant Mullis liable based solely on her supervisory role. There is no respondeat

superior under § 1983. Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652, 664 (7th Cir. 2019). Officials

are accountable for their own acts; they are not vicariously liable for the conduct

of subordinates. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009); Vance v. Rumsfeld, 701

F.3d 193, 203-05 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

It also appears that Plaintiff’s claim may be barred by the statute of

limitations, as Plaintiff’s allegations relate to events that occurred more than two

years prior to the filing of his Complaint. Federal courts, in determining the statute

of limitations for § 1983 claims, adopt the forum state’s statute of limitations for

personal injury claims. Kelly v. City of Chicago, 4 F.3d 509, 511 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing

Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985)). Illinois law provides a two-year statute

of limitations for personal injury actions. Kelly, 4 F.3d at 511 (citing 735 ILCS 5/13-

202). Federal law determines when the claim accrues. Wilson v. Giesen, 956 F.2d

738, 740 (7th Cir. 1992). Generally, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows, or has

a reason to know, of the injury giving rise to the cause of action. Id.

The limitations period is tolled while a prisoner completes the

administrative grievance process. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir.

2013) (citing Johnson v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519, 522 (7th Cir. 2001)). However, failure

to comply with mandatory grievance procedures makes tolling of the statute of

limitations unavailable. Santiago v. Snyder, 211 F. App'x 478, 480 (7th Cir. 2007)

(citing Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1023 (7th Cir. 2002)).

According to the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff filed a

grievance on August 16, 2023. (Doc. 1-1 at p. 1). In response to Plaintiff’s grievance,

Defendant Counselor Orvis stated: “The individual’s funeral furlough was denied

due to history of 200 level tickets.” Id. On October 3, 2023, the Grievance Officer

recommended that Plaintiff’s grievance should be denied. Id. at p. 11. On October

5, 2023, Defendant Warden Adkins concurred. Id. at p. 12. On October 24, 2023,

Plaintiff appealed to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). Id. Plaintiff did

not attach the ARB’s decision to his Complaint or indicate when the ARB issued

its decision on his appeal. Therefore, the Court is unable to determine if Plaintiff’s

claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Out of an abundance of caution,

Plaintiff will be given leave to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of this

Order.

If Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is instructed to identify the

date the ARB issued its decision on his appeal or to attach a copy of the ARB’s

decision as an exhibit to his Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to

state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and § 1915A.

The Court will allow Plaintiff a final opportunity to file an Amended Complaint

within 30 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely Amended Complaint,

or if the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief, his case will be

dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint will replace Plaintiff’s

Complaint in its entirety. The Amended Complaint must contain all allegations

against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure

to state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court will allow Plaintiff a final opportunity

to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order. If Plaintiff

fails to file a timely Amended Complaint, or if the Amended Complaint

fails to state a claim for relief, his case will be dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint will replace Plaintiff's Complaint in its

entirety. The Amended Complaint must contain all allegations against all

Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted.

2) The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank Section 1983 complaint

form.

It is so ordered.

Entered: April 10, 2026

s/Jonathan E. Hawley

U.S. District Judge