Derrick Miles v. Brittany P. Greene, et al.

Miles v. Greene · United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division · June 9, 2026 · No. 3:26-cv-03075-JEH

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois conducted a merit review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of Derrick Miles’s pro se § 1983 complaint. The court allowed Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims to proceed against Jon Moon, Corey Holzer, Silvester Erude, and Kyle Franklin, and allowed a First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed against Moon. Claims against Brittany Greene, Latoya Hughes, and J.B. Pritzker were dismissed without prejudice for lack of allegations showing personal involvement.

Court
United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division
Writing for the Court
Jonathan E. Hawley
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division
Decision date
June 9, 2026
Docket number
3:26-cv-03075-JEH
Procedural posture
Merit review of a prisoner civil-rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Standard of review
At § 1915A screening, the court accepted factual allegations as true and construed them liberally in plaintiff's favor, but disregarded conclusory statements and required sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. The dismissed claims were evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Precedential value
Unreported district court merit review order; precedential status not stated.
Parties
Derrick Miles v. Brittany P. Greene, Latoya Hughes, J.B. Pritzker, Jon Moon, Corey Holzer, Silvester Erude, Kyle Franklin
Disposition
other

Topics

section 1983due processfirst amendmentcivil procedureservice of process

Practice areas

civil rightsconstitutional lawprisoner litigationcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the allegations concerning five months of segregation, the disciplinary proceedings, and the alleged conditions of confinement stated a plausible Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against Moon, Holzer, Erude, and Franklin.
  2. Whether the allegations that Moon issued a second disciplinary ticket in retaliation for plaintiff's letters stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim.
  3. Whether receipt of plaintiff's letters, without allegations of personal involvement in the constitutional deprivations, stated a § 1983 claim against Pritzker, Hughes, or Greene.

Holdings

  1. The complaint plausibly alleged a procedural due process claim against Moon, Holzer, Erude, and Franklin because the alleged five-month segregation and conditions of confinement could implicate a protected liberty interest, and plaintiff alleged deficient disciplinary procedures.
  2. The complaint plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim against Moon.
  3. The complaint failed to state a claim against Pritzker, Hughes, or Greene because it alleged no personal involvement in a constitutional deprivation and relied only on their supervisory status and receipt of correspondence.

Key quotations

To succeed on a due process claim stemming from a prison disciplinary proceeding, an inmate must demonstrate (1) a constitutionally protected liberty interest and (2) deficient procedures attendant to the deprivation of that interest. (Section III)
To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, Plaintiff must successfully allege that (1) his speech was constitutionally protected; (2) he suffered a deprivation likely to deter free speech; and (3) his speech was at least a motivating factor in the Defendant’s action. (Section III)

Factual background

Plaintiff alleged that Officer Jon Moon issued two false disciplinary tickets, that adjustment-committee members found him guilty, and that he was placed in segregation for a total of five months. He alleged that the second ticket was retaliation for letters he sent to prison and state officials concerning due process violations and segregation conditions. He further alleged severe segregation conditions, including extreme heat, poor ventilation, mold, dust, denial of an inhaler and medical treatment, and lack of outdoor exercise. Plaintiff alleged that Governor Pritzker, IDOC Director Hughes, and Warden Greene received his letters but did not respond.

Procedural history

Plaintiff, an incarcerated pro se litigant, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process, retaliation, and unconstitutional-conditions claims arising from prison disciplinary proceedings and segregation. On merit review, the court found plausible Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Moon, Holzer, Erude, and Franklin and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Moon, while dismissing the claims against Greene, Hughes, and Pritzker without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The case proceeded to service against the remaining defendants.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…