Leiser v. Kershney, 2:19-cv-00677

Background

Plaintiff Jeffrey Leiser, a prisoner, alleged New Lisbon staff (including David Tarr and Larry Fuchs) orchestrated a transfer as retaliation for his litigation and assistance to other inmates; the court allowed a retaliation claim against Tarr and Fuchs.
After transfer to Redgranite, Leiser alleged Redgranite staff confiscated legal materials he was using to help other inmates.
The court previously screened the complaint and declined to allow claims alleging conspiracy and denial of access to courts, finding insufficient factual allegations of injury or conspiracy.
Leiser moved for reconsideration, arguing he stated an access-to-courts claim as a jailhouse lawyer and that Redgranite staff violated state law; he also asserted a retaliation claim against Redgranite staff.
Defendants Tarr and Fuchs moved for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds; Leiser failed to timely respond to the motion.
The court denied reconsideration, held the access-to-courts and conspiracy allegations insufficient, found the retaliation claim against Redgranite improper to join in this case under Rule 20, and gave Leiser a final deadline to respond to the summary judgment motion or face dismissal without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Leiser stated an access-to-courts claim based on Redgranite staff denying legal papers	Leiser: as a jailhouse lawyer he can assert interference with inmates' access to courts	Defendants: no allegation of actual injury to Leiser or the inmates; therefore no access claim	Denied — plaintiff failed to allege the requisite injury, so no access-to-courts claim stated
Whether alleged violations of state law create a § 1983 claim	Leiser: Redgranite staff improperly relied on DAI policy, violating state law and entitling him to relief	Defendants: violation of state law alone does not create a constitutional claim under § 1983	Denied — state-law violation alone is not actionable under § 1983 absent an independent constitutional violation
Whether Leiser plausibly alleged a conspiracy linking New Lisbon and Redgranite staff to permit joinder	Leiser: asserts a conspiracy connecting the transfers and confiscation so claims can be litigated together	Defendants: facts underlying each set of defendants are distinct; conspiracy allegations are speculative	Denied — allegations are conclusory and not plausibly pleaded; joinder under Rule 20 inappropriate; Redgranite claims must be brought separately
Whether the court should grant summary judgment for failure to exhaust due to Leiser's nonresponse	Leiser: (did not file timely response; later given final opportunity)	Tarr & Fuchs: moved for summary judgment on exhaustion; no response suggests no opposition	Court ordered final deadline to respond; warned that failure to respond will result in granting motion and dismissal without prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual content permitting plausible inference of liability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires more than labels and conclusions)
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009) (retaliation standard in prisoner speech/assistance context)
Kasper v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs of Chi., 814 F.2d 332 (7th Cir. 1987) (violation of state law alone does not state § 1983 claim)
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate suits to prevent abuse)