Samuel Ross v. A. Hoase, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois conducted a merit review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of Samuel Ross’s pro se § 1983 complaint concerning his incarceration at Hill Correctional Center. The court allowed claims for procedural due process, First Amendment retaliation, excessive force, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference to mental health needs to proceed, while dismissing claims against certain grievance officials and the conditions-of-confinement claim without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Ross plausibly alleged a protected liberty interest and deficient procedures because the 144-day segregation, allegedly severe conditions, and possible disciplinary transfer could constitute an atypical and significant hardship. The due process claim may proceed against Hoase, Bryan, and Range.
2. Ross failed to state a claim against Linboom, Baker, and Kildoff based solely on their alleged mishandling of grievances, correspondence, or participation in the grievance process. Those defendants were dismissed without prejudice.
3. Ross plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim against Moore based on alleged harassment, mail interference, medical-treatment interference, and false disciplinary tickets after Ross filed a PREA complaint.
4. Ross plausibly alleged an excessive-force claim against Johnson based on the alleged violent yanking of his handcuff and waist-chain leash. Ross did not plausibly allege that Greene personally used force, but he plausibly alleged a failure-to-intervene claim against Greene.
5. Ross plausibly alleged that Main and Rapp were deliberately indifferent to serious mental-health needs by refusing to speak with him, provide treatment, or allow him to attend mental-health programs during segregation.
6. Ross failed to state a conditions-of-confinement claim because he did not identify which officials knew about the allegedly unconstitutional conditions or failed to take corrective action. The claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ross plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim based on his 144-day segregation, the conditions of segregation, and the disciplinary proceedings.
2. Whether alleged mishandling of Ross's grievances by Linboom, Baker, and Kildoff established personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether Ross plausibly alleged First Amendment retaliation based on Moore's conduct after Ross filed a PREA complaint.
4. Whether Ross plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Johnson and a failure-to-intervene claim against Greene.
5. Whether Ross plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious mental-health needs against Main and Rapp.
6. Whether Ross stated an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim despite not identifying officials who knew of and failed to correct the alleged conditions.

Disposition

other