Ar-Raafi Nichols v. Christel S. Crow, Gregory Little, Diane Skorch, C/O Cacioppo, A. Desai, and Lt. O'Leary

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois conducts preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of an incarcerated plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint. The court allows a First Amendment retaliation claim against commissary employee Cacioppo to proceed, dismisses the remaining retaliation, due process, and medical-care claims without prejudice, terminates the other defendants, and denies the motion for recruitment of counsel.

Holdings

1. Nichols plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Cacioppo because he alleged that she expressly refused to permit commissary purchases in retaliation for his grievances.
2. Nichols failed to plausibly state retaliation claims against O'Leary and Little because he alleged no facts connecting their actions to his grievance activity.
3. Nichols failed to state a due-process claim based on twenty-five days in segregation because that period, without additional allegations concerning the conditions, was insufficient by itself to establish a protected liberty interest, and the complaint did not allege denial of the informal process otherwise required.
4. Nichols's medical-care claims against Desai and O'Leary were improperly joined because they were not transactionally related to the surviving commissary-retaliation claim against Cacioppo.
5. Nichols failed to state a claim against Skorch because the complaint merely named her in the caption and alleged no conduct by her.
6. Recruitment of counsel was denied because Nichols demonstrated reasonable efforts to obtain counsel but was capable of representing himself at the early stage of this straightforward case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Nichols plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Cacioppo, O'Leary, and Little.
2. Whether Nichols stated a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim based on a disciplinary ticket, hearing, and twenty-five-day segregation term.
3. Whether Nichols's medical-care allegations against Desai and O'Leary were properly joined with the retaliation claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.
4. Whether claims against Skorch should be dismissed because the complaint contained no factual allegations against her.
5. Whether recruitment of counsel was warranted at the early stage of the litigation.

Disposition

other