Norwood v. Carter
3:22-cv-02862-JPG
| S.D. Ill. | Aug 23, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Ricky Norwood, Jr., a pretrial detainee at Marion County Law Enforcement Center, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages for several jail conditions and administrative actions.
- Allegations included: no carbon monoxide detectors/proper fire alarm system; commissary price gouging after Keefe announced a price increase; a $0.01 phone-rate increase characterized as false advertising; 15% profits from commissary/phone sales used for jail supplies rather than inmate-requested items; and unanswered grievances.
- Plaintiff alleged violations of a jail administrative code limiting commissary prices and asserted mishandling of inmate trust funds and the grievance process.
- The Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- The district court dismissed all counts with prejudice for being frivolous and for failure to state a claim, concluding negligence and the alleged administrative acts did not state constitutional violations.
- The dismissal counts as one strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); filing fees remain due; appeal and Rule 59(e) guidance provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Count 1: Failure to install CO detectors/fire alarm | Norwood: jail’s lack of detectors/alarm and officials’ responses show negligence that violates detainee rights | Jail: negligence is insufficient for § 1983; no allegations of defendants’ personal involvement | Dismissed with prejudice — negligence not a constitutional violation; no causal link to defendants |
| Count 2: Commissary price gouging | Norwood: Keefe’s price increase and jail inaction violated Jail Admin. Code limiting prices | Jail: state law permits recouping incarceration costs; no specific examples showing charges exceed local rates; pricing is administrative | Dismissed with prejudice — no constitutional claim alleged |
| Count 3: Phone-rate "false advertising" | Norwood: small rate change (from $3.48 to $3.49) is improper/false advertising | Jail: no federal/state cap on rates; Seventh Circuit precedent rejects constitutional claims based on high phone rates | Dismissed with prejudice — telephone rates do not state a constitutional violation |
| Count 4: Use of commissary/phone profits | Norwood: 15% profit allocation was misused instead of funding inmate programs/items | Jail: allocation/spending decisions are administrative; no facts showing misuse of Norwood’s trust account or constitutional violation | Dismissed with prejudice — disagreement over spending is not a constitutional injury |
| Count 5: Grievance mishandling | Norwood: failure of Reed and Kripps to answer grievances for two months abridges his rights | Jail: there is no constitutional right to a grievance procedure nor to particular responses | Dismissed with prejudice — no constitutional right to grievance process |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (frivolousness standard for pleadings)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (distinguishing pretrial detainee protections)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304 (7th Cir. 2015) (Eighth Amendment vs. Fourteenth Amendment standards for detainees)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (U.S. 1976) (requirement of causal connection/affirmative link for § 1983 liability)
- Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2005) (personal involvement requirement under § 1983)
- Arsberry v. Illinois, 244 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2001) (telephone rates do not violate First Amendment and related constitutional claims)
- Daniel v. Cook County, 833 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2016) (no constitutional right to a grievance procedure)
- Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2011) (grievance procedure does not create liberty interest)