GABALDON v. LILLY
2:10-cv-00149
| S.D. Ind. | Dec 15, 2010Background
- Gabaldon, an inmate at USP Terre Haute, sues S. Lilly, Lawrence Howard, Warden Marberry, and K. Beaver for Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment.
- Plaintiff also alleges Parker, E. Rardin, and Lt. Taylor blocked him from using the USPTH grievance procedure; medical care claims by Z. Ndife and T. Webster were severed into No. 2:10-cv-281-JMS-TAB.
- The court applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) screening standard and assesses facial plausibility under Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
- The court dismisses the grievance-procedure claim against Parker, E. Rardin, and Lt. Taylor as noncognizable under established Seventh Circuit rule that inmate grievances are procedural, not substantive due process rights.
- Because the related civil action in No. 2:10-cv-281-JMS-TAB was recently dismissed and the plaintiff failed to provide a new address, the court delays service and sets a deadline for Gabaldon to indicate intent to proceed.
- No final judgment on the remaining claims is entered; the court directs Gabaldon to report by Jan 12, 2011 whether he wishes to proceed with any surviving claims and to provide updated contact information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the grievance-procedure claim states a due process violation | Gabaldon argues denial of grievance rights violates due process | Grievance rights are procedural, not substantive under Antonelli and Grieveson | Dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Whether to issue process on Lilly, Howard, and Marberry given address issues | Gabaldon intends to proceed with surviving claims | Proceeding cannot occur without current address | Postponed; plaintiff must indicate intent to proceed and provide updated address by deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2006) (filing standards under §1915A; screening for plausibility)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (failure to state a claim standard; plausibility implied in complaint evaluation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility requirement for federal pleadings)
- Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2008) (inmate grievance procedure as procedural right, not substantive liberty interest)
- Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422 (7th Cir. 1996) (grievance rights are procedural, not substantive due process)
- Goulding v. Feinglass, 811 F.2d 1099 (7th Cir. 1987) (federal claims require violation of Constitution or federal statute)