Anthony Walsh V Felicia Adkins Et Al

Key Facts

Issues

• Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to not investigate or hold others accountable regarding his grievance claim. The court finds that state grievance procedures do not create substantive liberty interests protected by due process, nor is there a First Amendment right to any such procedure. Therefore, alleged mishandling of grievances by persons who did not cause the underlying conduct states no claim.
• 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 (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself. The plaintiff attached a list of two lawyers contacted but did not show reasonable attempts to find counsel or that he was prevented from doing so before seeking court assistance.
• Plaintiff alleges that prison officials violated his constitutional rights via failure to grant admittance to an educational program. He asserts that Defendant Montgomery mishandled his application, misstated his eligibility, and played favorites for other applicants. The court finds that while Montgomery may have mishandled the application, these allegations do not plausibly indicate a violation of a right secured under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.
• The court must screen the plaintiff's complaint to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient allegations. A claim is legally insufficient if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court accepts factual allegations as true but requires facts to state a plausible claim for relief.

Holdings

• Under merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds 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.
• Plaintiff's Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is moot because Plaintiff paid the filing fee.
• Plaintiff's allegations related to his application to the Northwestern University Prison Education Program do not plausibly indicate a violation of a right secured under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.
• Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to make a reasonable attempt to find a lawyer or was prevented from doing so before seeking Court assistance.
• Plaintiff's allegations against Defendants based on the handling and ultimate denial of Plaintiff's grievances also fail to state a claim.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires courts to screen prisoner complaints filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, identifying and dismissing any legally insufficient allegations. A claim is legally insufficient if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. Courts accept factual allegations as true and liberally construe them in the plaintiff's favor, but conclusory statements and labels are insufficient—the facts must state a plausible claim for relief on its face.
• When a plaintiff proceeds pro se and requests court-appointed counsel, 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 (2) given the difficulty of the case, whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate it himself. The plaintiff must show they contacted several civil rights attorneys regarding specific allegations and provided copies of letters sent and responses received.
• Prison grievance procedures do not create substantive liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause, nor is there a First Amendment right to any such procedure. Alleged mishandling of grievances by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim. The Administrative Review Board's denial of a grievance as meritless does not create a constitutional violation.
• Prisoners do not have a substantive liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause in unawarded program sentence credits or good-time credits that are entirely discretionary. The court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to participate in the educational program through Northwestern University, and that allegations of mishandling the application do not plausibly indicate a violation of a right secured under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.

Precedent Name

• Grieveson v. Anderson
• Alexander v. United States
• Pruitt v. Mote
• Turley v. Rednour
• Owens v. Hinsley
• Antonelli v. Sheahan
• Montgomery v. Anderson
• Zimmerman v. Tribble

Cited Statute

• Judicial Improvements Act of 1990
• Civil Rights Act of 1964

Judge Name

Passage Text

• State grievance procedures do not create substantive liberty interests protected by due process, nor is there a First Amendment right to any such procedure.
• 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.
• 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.