The opinion
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, filed an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights at Danville Correctional Center
(“Danville”). (Doc. 16). This case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
I
In reviewing the Amended 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 alleges Defendant Warden Adkins failed to properly review and
submit his funeral furlough request to attend his mother’s funeral. According to a
grievance attached to his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s mother passed away on
July 16, 2023. (Doc. 16-1 at p. 1).
When Plaintiff inquired about his funeral furlough request, Defendants
Counselor Orvis and Clinical Services Supervisor Mullis allegedly told Plaintiff
the request had been submitted to Defendant Director Hughes, when in fact it had
not. Plaintiff filed a grievance, to no avail.
After learning his funeral furlough request had not been submitted, Plaintiff
and his family contacted Defendant Director Hughes, who instructed Plaintiff’s
family to contact staff at Danville. When Plaintiff’s family members informed
Defendant Hughes that they had already done so, Defendant Hughes allegedly
told them she would follow up about the request. Plaintiff alleges Defendant
Hughes misled Plaintiff and his family about the status of his request.
Plaintiff alleges he was denied the opportunity to attend his mother’s
funeral and instead was given a video visit in a crowded dayroom, which violated
his privacy. Plaintiff alleges he requested a mental health crisis team. According
to his grievance, the funeral occurred on August 1, 2023. Id. at p. 4.
In the Court’s prior Merit Review Order, the Court noted it appeared
Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 10 at p. 4). The
Court instructed Plaintiff to identify the date the Administrative Review Board
(“ARB”) issued its decision on his appeal or to attach a copy of the ARB’s decision
as an exhibit to his Amended Complaint. Id. at p. 5. Plaintiff did not do so. (See
Docs. 16 and 16-1).
III
The Seventh Circuit has clearly stated that federal law does not entitle a
prisoner “to compassionate leave or for that matter even to have contact with their
families in prison.” Thomas v. Farley, 31 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Merrit
v. Broglin, 891 F.2d 169 (7th Cir. 1989) and Touissaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.3d 1080,
1113 (9th Cir. 1986)). Courts in other circuits have also held that prisoners have no
constitutional right to leave prison to attend a funeral, “that is, denial of
permission to attend a funeral does not implicate any constitutionally protected
liberty interest.” Pierre v. LCS Corr. Servs., Inc., No. 10–CV–0024, 2010 WL 5559754,
at *5 (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2010) (collecting cases); see also Sorenson v. Minn. Dep't of
Corr., No. 12–CV–1336, 2012 WL 3150722, at *3 (D. Minn. June 20, 2012) (“Federal
courts have repeatedly held that prison inmates do not have a constitutional right
to attend funerals” and collecting cases). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
and § 1915A.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any further amendment would be futile because
Plaintiff cannot allege a cognizable claim on these facts.
2) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
3) This dismissal may count as one of Plaintiff's three allotted strikes
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk is directed to record Plaintiff's
strike in the three-strike log.
4) Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his case
has been dismissed. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall continue
to make monthly payments to the Clerk, as directed in the Court's prior
Order. (See d/e 9).
5) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal
with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the
issues Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the Court in determining
whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c);
see also Celske v. Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that an
appellant should be allowed to submit a statement of the grounds for
appealing so that the district judge "can make a reasonable assessment of
the issue of good faith"); Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000)
(providing that a good-faith appeal is an appeal that "a reasonable person
could suppose . . . has some merit" from a legal perspective). If Plaintiff
chooses to appeal, he will be liable for the $605 appellate filing fee
regardless of the outcome of the appeal.
It is so ordered.
Entered: September 9, 2026
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. District Judge