Whatley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

LAMAR EDWARD WHATLEY, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 25-3320

)

CHARLES RHODES et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER

COLLEEN R. LAWLESS, United States District Judge:

Before the Court is a Complaint (Doc. 1) filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff

Lamar Edward Whatley, an inmate at Graham Correctional Center (“Graham”).

I. Screening Standard

The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint 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. In

reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as accurate, liberally

construing them in the plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (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 omitted).

II. Factual Allegations

Plaintiff alleges violations at Graham against Corrections Lieutenant Deal,

Corrections Officer Chelsey Rhodes, and Corrections Sergeant Matthew C. Tomazzoli.

On May 20, 2025, Plaintiff was asleep in his cell when several correctional officers

awakened him. The corrections officer asked Plaintiff if he needed medical assistance

because Plaintiff had been unresponsive. After Plaintiff told Defendant Tomazzoli that

he was sick, Tomazzoli told Plaintiff that he had received information that Plaintiff was

under the influence of drugs. Plaintiff was handcuffed, taken to healthcare, strip-

searched, and then placed in a cell under observation. A nurse later determined that

Plaintiff’s “speech was blurred” and his eyes were red. Plaintiff was then moved to

“temporary confinement” on May 21, 2025, until his Adjustment Committee hearing on

May 29, 2025.

Plaintiff attaches the Adjustment Committee’s Final Summary report, dated May

29, 2025, which considered the following rule violations: “203 Drug and Drug

Paraphernalia (Comment: under the influence [of an] unknown substance)” and “308

Contraband/Unauthorized Property (Comment: burnt pen, batteries, wires, cash apps).”

(Doc. 1-1 at 9).

Plaintiff pleaded not guilty to the rule violations and informed the Adjustment

Committee that he was sick for three days and was prohibited from seeking medical care.

(Id.) After considering the information provided, the Adjustment Committee determined

that Plaintiff had committed the rule violations alleged, citing the following as its basis:

The Adjustment Committee finds [Plaintiff] guilty of 203 and

308 based on the written statement by [Defendant]

Tomazzoli[,] which states, on 5-20-25 at 9:30 pm[,] I was

notified by hu 18 that [Plaintiff] was unresponsive. I called a

code 3[,] and nursing staff arrived. [Plaintiff] woke up but was

very confused, had slurred speech, and had dilated pupils.

[Plaintiff] was in possession of paraphernalia items.[Plaintiff]

was deemed to be under the influence by medical staff.

[Plaintiff was] placed in E ward for further evaluation.

(Id.)

The Adjustment Committee then recommended the following restrictions, which

were approved: one month of C grade status, a contact visit restricted for six months, and

the revocation of one month of good conduct credit. (Id.)

III. Analysis

Plaintiff initially claims that after being placed in handcuffs, he was searched

without his consent, which does not state a claim for relief. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.

517, 526 (1984) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches

does not apply within the confines of the prison cell.”); see also Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d

1137, 1139 (7th Cir. 1984) (“The Supreme Court’s opinion [in Hudson] precludes Fourth

Amendment challenges to prison cell searches taken for any reason, whether or not

reasonable.”).

Plaintiff next claims that his rights were violated during the Adjustment

Committee hearing because finding him guilty of “any kind of drugs” requires testing to

establish the existence of contraband. However, “the requirements of due process are

satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board to

revoke good time credits.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).

“This is a lenient standard, requiring no more than ‘a modicum of evidence.’” Webb v.

Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted) (quoting

Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985)). “Even ‘meager’ proof will

suffice, so long as ‘the record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the

disciplinary board were without support or otherwise arbitrary.’” Webb v. Anderson, 224

F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted).

The Adjustment Committee determined Plaintiff violated the rules alleged based

on Defendant Tomazzoli’s written statement, which contained his observations upon

contacting Plaintiff, the seizure of contraband items indicative of drug use, and the

medical determination that Plaintiff was under the influence.

Furthermore, “Wolff v. McDonnell[, 418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974)], sets forth the

minimum due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings when the

prisoner has been charged with serious misconduct which could result in loss of good

time credits, punitive segregation, or which might also be punishable in state criminal

proceedings.” Chavis v. Rowe, 643 F.2d 1281, 1285 n.3 (7th Cir. 1981). “Due process

requires that prisoners in disciplinary proceedings be given: ‘(1) advance (at least 24

hours before hearing) written notice of the claimed violation; (2) the opportunity to be

heard before an impartial decision maker; (3) the opportunity to call witnesses and

present documentary evidence (when consistent with institutional safety); and (4) a

written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the

disciplinary action.’” Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Rasheed-

Bey v. Duckworth, 969 F.2d 357, 361 (7th Cir. 1992)). The provided record does not show,

and Plaintiff does not allege that he was denied due process as outlined in Wolff.

Consequently, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

However, if Plaintiff believes he can revise his pleading to state a cause of action,

he may file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. If Plaintiff decides to

file a second amended complaint, his amended pleading shall not exceed ten pages total

and shall be the only exhibit appended to his motion for leave.

The Court does not accept piecemeal amendments. Plaintiff’s amended pleading

must stand independently without reference to his initial filing and contain all claims

against all defendants. Plaintiff’s amendment must succinctly specify the constitutional

violation, when it occurred, and the Defendant or Defendants personally involved. See

Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995) (“To recover damages under § 1983,

a plaintiff must establish that a defendant was personally responsible for the deprivation

of a constitutional right.”); see also Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir.

2014) (“Rule 8 specifies what is required in the complaint: ‘A pleading that states a claim

for relief must contain: . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.8(a)).

The Court informs Plaintiff that any attempt to join unrelated claims and

defendants in his amended complaint is not permitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In

other words, multiple claims against a single defendant are allowed, but “Claim A

against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different

defendants belong in different suits.” Id.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) for failure to

state a federal claim.

2) Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty

days of the entry of the Court’s Merit Review Order and in compliance with the

Court’s guidance. If Plaintiff does not submit an amendment on or before the

thirty-day deadline, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s case without prejudice.

ENTERED July 20, 2026.

s/ Colleen R. Lawless

____________________________________

COLLEEN R. LAWLESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE