Drakkar v. Illinois Department of Corrections
3:12-cv-00277
S.D. Ill.May 30, 2012Background
- Drakkar, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for religious rights violations.
- Court performs screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and may dismiss frivolous or non-viable claims.
- Plaintiff, a Rastafarian, alleges prison forced removal of his dreadlocked hair, a religious practice.
- Hair removal occurred while he was in segregated confinement; plaintiff alleges it violated his religious exercise.
- Plaintiff cannot identify the individuals who ordered or carried out the removal, naming IDOC and its Director, S.A. Godinez, but not personally linked to the conduct.
- The court dismisses IDOC and Godinez with prejudice/non-prejudice and allows amendment to name individual defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDOC and Godinez can be liable | Drakkar argues the defendants violated his religious rights. | IDOC/Godinez are not personally responsible for the deprivation. | No; claims against IDOC and Godinez dismissed. |
| Whether there is a viable religious rights claim | Dreadlocks are a Rastafarian tenet; removal burdened practice. | Removal may be justified by security or penological interests. | Plaintiff may have a claim, but must identify the responsible individuals. |
| Whether John Doe/Correctional Officer can be held liable | John Doe and Officer allegedly acted to remove hair. | No specific defendants named or linked to conduct. | Amendment required to identify real defendants; proceed only against identified individuals. |
| Whether amendment is allowed and scope | Amend to name individual defendants and specify details. | No amendment clarity; risk of dismissal. | Leave to amend granted with conditions; should allege personal responsibility for the acts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46 (7th Cir. 1990) (prison religious practice burden balanced against security concerns)
- Reed v. Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960 (7th Cir. 1988) ( Rastafarian dreadlocks as religious observance)
- Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012) (wearing dreadlocks as Rastafarian observance)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state immunity under Eleventh Amendment; non-personhood of states/officials in § 1983)