Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100303_0000392.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-10 01:05:39
Document Index: 181396401

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 2000', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

| Mysliwiec v. Ryker
Mysliwiec v. Ryker
MICHAEL D. MYSLIWIEC, PLAINTIFF,v.LEE RYKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, an inmate formerly confined at the Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time Plaintiff submitted this complaint, he was still confined at Lawrence Correctional Center and, therefore, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A apply to his complaint. See Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895, 897-98 (7th Cir. 1997). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that he asked Defendant Love to change his religious affiliation from "Catholic" to "Jehovah's Witness." Plaintiff also asked Defendant Love to participate in religious services for Jehovah's Witnesses. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Love refused both requests. Plaintiff contends that Love's refusal violates Plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, et seq.
It is well-established that "a prisoner is entitled to practice his religion insofar as doing so does not unduly burden the administration of the prison." Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46, 47 (7th Cir. 1990); see Al-Alamin v. Gramley, 926 F.2d 680, 686 and nn. 3-5 (7th Cir. 1991) (collecting cases). On the other hand, a prison regulation that impinges on an inmate's First Amendment rights is nevertheless valid "if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987) (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). Such interests include inmate security and the proper allocation of limited prison resources. See id. at 348, 352-53; Turner, 482 U.S. at 90; Al-Alamin, 926 F.2d at 686. Based on the allegations of the complaint, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Love survive threshold review and should not be dismissed at this time.
Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Ryker, however, should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. "The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to § 1983 actions; thus to be held individually liable, a defendant must be 'personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.' " Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001), quoting Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001). See also Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Eades v. Thompson, 823 F.2d 1055, 1063 (7th Cir. 1987); Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983); Duncan v. Duckworth, 644 F.2d 653, 655-56 (7th Cir. 1981). Although, Plaintiff named Defendant Ryker in the caption of his complain, there are no allegations indicating how Defendant Ryker was "personally responsible" for the alleged deprivations of Plaintiff's rights. A plaintiff cannot state a claim against a defendant by simply including the defendant's name in the caption. Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Ryker are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The dismissal of these claims count as a "strike" for purposed of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because there are no claims currently pending against Defendant Ryker, he is DISMISSED as a Defendant in this action.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to prepare Form 1A (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons) and Form 1B (Waiver of Service of Summons) for Defendant Love. The Clerk shall forward those forms, USM-285 forms submitted by Plaintiff, and sufficient copies of the complaint to the United States Marshal for service.
The United States Marshal is DIRECTED, pursuant to Rule 4(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to serve process on Defendant Love in the manner specified by Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Process in this case shall consist of the complaint, applicable forms 1A and 1B, and this Memorandum and Order. For purposes of computing the passage of time under Rule 4(d)(2), the Court and all parties will compute time as of the date it is mailed by the Marshal, as noted on the USM-285 form.