Johnson v. Vanzant

1

ONEAL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. WESLEY VANZANT, STEPHANIE WAGGONER, WILLIAM HENSON, AND JOHN DRANNAN, Defendants.

No. 3:21-CV-00039-MAB

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 8, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARK A. BEATTY United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Motions to Send Subpoenas and Deny Notice of Compliance (Docs. 51 & 52) and the Motion for Approval of Subpoenas (Doc. 59) filed by Plaintiff ONeal Johnson. Also before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants John Drannan, Wesley Vanzant, Stephanie Waggoner, and William Henson (Doc. 53). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions (Docs. 51 52, & 59) are DENIED and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53) is GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiff is a former Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) inmate who filed this action, pro se, on October 21, 2020 (Doc. 1). During the times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff was housed at Vandalia Correctional Center (“Vandalia”) and Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”) (see Id. at p. 2-3). Plaintiff alleges Defendants caused him to remain incarcerated beyond his release date of October 23 2018, based on a fabricated parole violation that he did not have a residence to stay at after his release and had not completed “preschool” (Id. at p. 3-6). Plaintiff was eventually released from custody on December 3, 2018 (Id. at p. 6). Plaintiff raises a variety of claims including false arrest, unlawful incarceration, “malicious incarceration, ” and “conspiracy to violate civil rights” (Id. at p. 7-9).

Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, arguing Plaintiff's claims were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (Doc. 36). Heck requires the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint unless he can prove his parole revocation was overturned or invalidated. Id. at p. 486-87; see also the Court's Order at Doc. 45. The Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss because it was not apparent from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff's parole revocation was not vacated (Doc. 45). However, given the potentially dispositive issue, the Court ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery on the following topics to determine whether Plaintiff's Complaint is Heck-barred: (A) Plaintiff's continued incarceration past October 23, 2018; (B) the parole violation Plaintiff was purportedly held on and the outcome of that violation; and (C) the circumstances of Plaintiff's eventual release in December 2018 (Id. at p. 7).

On January 20, 2022, Defendants filed a Notice of Compliance that states they produced the following to Plaintiff: all parole violation documents in the possession of Defendants' counsel; Plaintiff's “Active Living History” while in IDOC custody; Plaintiff's “Active Movement Histy” while in IDOC custody; Plaintiff's Cumulative Counseling Summary; Plaintiff's “Disciplinary History” and “Offender History”; Plaintiff's relevant indictment and mittimus; and Plaintiff's IDOC Master File (Doc. 49).

Also, Defendants' Counsel stated they were advised by the Illinois State Prisoner Review Board (“PRB”) that it required a subpoena to produce Plaintiff's parole file (Id. at p. 2). On February 2, 2022, the Court ordered Defendants to issue a subpoena for the parole file (Doc. 50).

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed two Motions to Send Subpoenas and Deny Notice of Compliance (Docs. 51 & 52). In the motions, Plaintiff contends that documents are missing from his IDOC Master File, including grievances, call logs, and “field services” paperwork. Also, according to Plaintiff, he was informed that his Stateville Master File was different than his Vandalia Master File, and Defendants' counsel instructed Plaintiff to serve subpoenas for the files. Plaintiff's motions suggest the missing evidence demonstrates that he and his sister attempted to contact “field services” to take the steps necessary for his release.

On March 30, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that reasserts their argument under Heck (Doc. 53). Defendants cite PRB documents, which show Plaintiff was found in violation of his parole (Doc. 54, p. 37-39 & 45-48). None of the PRB records indicate the finding has been vacated (see Id.).

On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion titled, “Motion to Deny Summary Judgment and Motion for Discovery” (Doc. 56). Plaintiff does not contend that his parole violation has been vacated. Instead, he argues the violation was based on falsities, mistakes, and injustices, and that “the PRB decision should be reversed” (Id. at p. 8). Also, the motion requests discovery related to: Plaintiff's parole violation hearing; the “Prisoner Reentry Group”; Plaintiff's family and friends who were contacted to provide a host site; all grievances from Stateville and Vandalia; Plaintiff's Master File; and the PRB (Id.).

On April 26, 2022, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's motions concerning the allegedly missing information in their document production (Doc. 57). Also, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to send blank subpoena forms to Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to file the subpoenas for the Court's review (Id.).

Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Motions to Send Subpoenas and Deny Notice of Compliance states Defendants produced the entirety of Plaintiff's IDOC file, the entirety of Plaintiff's PRB file, and Plaintiff's Master File (Doc. 58). Defendants attached a declaration from IDOC's Litigation Coordinator at Stateville, which provides, “Each time an individual in custody is transferred to a new facility within IDOC, the entirety of the individual in custody's Master file is sent to the individual in custody's new facility” (Doc. 58, p. 4). The declaration states that “each and every document that Stateville has in their possession for [Plaintiff]” was produced (Id. at p. 5).

On May 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Approval of Subpoenas (Doc. 59) and a document titled, “Notice to the Court to Deny Defendants Notice of compliance, and to Apply Sanctions also any Criminal Charges as the Court Deemed Just and Fair” (Doc. 60) (“Plaintiff's Notice”).

Plaintiff's Notice accuses Defendants' counsel of misleading the Court and accuses Stateville's IDOC Litigation Coordinator of committing perjury in her declaration (Doc. 60). According to Plaintiff, Defendants did not produce the documents they claimed to have sent to Plaintiff. Plaintiff states he talked to “Stateville records, ” “Stateville legal department, ” a Commander Hatchet, and a Commander Akpore, who confirmed the existence of the documents missing from Defendants' productions (Id. at p. 3-4). Plaintiff asks the Court to sanction Defendants' counsel and hold IDOC's Litigation Coordinator in contempt (Id. at p. 2). Also, Plaintiff's Notice argues his parole violation was a result of Defendants sending the “Parole agency” the wrong phone number for Plaintiff's sister, Brenda Johnson, with whom Plaintiff planned to stay after his release (Id. at p. 2). Because the parole officers did not have the correct phone number, they arrived at Ms. Johnson's home, she was not there, and they erroneously concluded the home was abandoned (Id. at p. 2-3). Plaintiff argues Ms. Johnson subsequently spoke to a parole officer and requested “new documents” to arrange for another visit, but she never received them (Id. at p. 3). Plaintiff argues that his “violation should be vacated” (Id. at p. 5).

Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Subpoenas (Doc. 59) contains two proposed subpoenas for the Court's review. Plaintiff seeks to command non-party Stateville Records Office to produce the following:

Parole agent note, parole file, phone number address of hold site, Commandor Hatchet notes, Commandor Akpore note, 10/30/18 PRB parole or release violation hearing-findings, 10/30/2018 unredacted service officer Drannan location Fayette 10/24/18, all phone calls from Brenda Johnson

(Doc. 59, p. 2) (errors in original).

Plaintiff seeks to command non-party Stateville Local Services to produce the following:

Master file, MSR agreement, parole agreement master file from Stateville and Vandalia Correctional Center, 2018 all grievances from Stateville and Vandalia, hold site form sent to hold site Brenda Johnson, 816 W 76 St Chic Ill. 60620, parole hearing file

(Id. at p. 3) (errors in original).

Analysis

I. Plaintiff's Discovery Motions

Plaintiff's Motions to Send Subpoenas and Deny Notice of Compliance (Docs. 51 & 52), Plaintiff's Motion to Deny Summary Judgment and Motion for Discovery (Doc. 56), and Plaintiff's Notice (Doc. 60) argue Plaintiff should not have been found in violation of his parole and that the violation should be vacated. The motions identify the following documents that supposedly support this position and are allegedly missing from Defendants' productions grievances Plaintiff submitted; Plaintiff's requests to “field services” for “hold site” information; documents concerning “field services'” phone calls to Plaintiff regarding information on his release; “hold site” information sent to Ms. Johnson; documents reflecting Plaintiff's “hold site” denial on September 28, 2018; documents reflecting Plaintiff being “given another opportunity to find another hold sight”; documents concerning Plaintiff attending “preschool”; call logs that document calls from Ms. Johnson to Vandalia; paperwork from “field services” to the parole agency; “dress out documents”; the PRB's order that found Plaintiff was in violation of his parole; Plaintiff's “full Parole hearing, testimony, and explanation of charges”; Commander Hatchet's notes; Commander Akpore's notes; and Plaintiff's MSR agreement (Docs. 51) (Doc. 56) (Doc. 60). Further, Plaintiff requests...