SCHONABAUM v. ROBERTSON et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
DAVID A. SCHONABAUM, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00127-JPH-MG
)
T. ROBERTSON DHB Officer, 	)
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
)
)
STATE OF INDIANA, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER SCREENING AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff 	David 	Schonabaum 	is 	a 	prisoner 	currently 	incarcerated 	at
Correctional Industrial Facility. He filed this civil action on March 10, 2025.
Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner," this Court must screen the complaint before
service on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c).
I. Screening Standard
When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To
determine whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same
standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020).
Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
Case 2:25-cv-00127-JPH-MG Document 21 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a "less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720
(7th Cir. 2017).
II. The Complaint
A plaintiff's factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading stage.
See Lisby v. Henderson, 74 F.4th 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2023). The complaint names
a 	single 	defendant: 	Disciplinary 	Hearing 	Officer 	(DHO) 	T. 	Robertson. 	Mr.
Schonabaum seeks compensatory damages, lost wages, and that a disciplinary
conviction be reversed and vacated.
In the relevant disciplinary proceeding, Mr. Schonabaum was found guilty
of a B-247 offense, soliciting personal information. Dkt. 1 at 2. DHO Robertson
imposed sanctions consisting of the loss of commissary, phone, and tablet
privileges. Id. at 3. Because Mr. Schonabaum was placed on idle for a period of
time, 	he also 	lost his 	kitchen 	job. 	Id. Mr. 	Schonabaum 	alleges 	that 	DHO
Robertson was not impartial and did not provide a written statement, and there
was insufficient evidence to find him guilty, in violation of his Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
III. Discussion of Claims
A Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest is implicated only if a sanction
creates an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
Case 2:25-cv-00127-JPH-MG Document 21 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). In
this case, Mr. Schonabaum did not lose any earned credit time. Rather, he was
deprived only of commissary, phone, and tablet privileges for 30 days. These
conditions are not serious enough to raise a concern under the Due Process
Clause. See Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 610 (7th Cir. 2005) (3 months of
segregation, loss of work, and loss of programming, telephone, and commissary
privileges were not protected liberty interests). Mr. Schonabaum's claim that he
was unlawfully deprived of these privileges is dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
Mr. Schonabaum further alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment rights
were violated when he lost his kitchen job. Prisoners, however, have no liberty
or property interest in their jobs. See Grady v. Kinder, 799 F. App'x 925, 927 (7th
Cir. 2020) ("removal from a prison job does not implicate liberty or property
interests"); Starry v. Oshkosh Corr. Inst., 731 F. App'x 517, 518 (7th Cir. 2018);
Soule v. Potts, 676 F. App'x 585, 586 (7th Cir. 2017) ("The Constitution does not
give prisoners any substantive entitlements to prison employment."); DeWalt v.
Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 613 (7th Cir. 2000); McGee v. Mayo, 211 F. App'x 492, 494
(7th Cir. 2006). This claim is also dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief
against the defendant, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
Case 2:25-cv-00127-JPH-MG Document 21 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
IV. 	Opportunity to File a Second Amended Complaint
The dismissal of the complaint will not, in this instance, lead to the
dismissal of the action at present. "The usual standard in civil cases is to allow
defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where
amendment would not be futile." Abu-Sawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738
(7th Cir. 2018). In the interest of justice, the Court will allow Mr. Schonabaum
to amend his complaint if, after revies this Court's Order, he believes that he can
state a viable claim for relief, consistent with the allegations he has already
made. See Tate v. SCR Med. Transp., 809 F.3d 343, 346 (7th Cir. 2015) ("We've
often said that before dismissing a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1815(e)(2)(B)(ii) a judge
should give the litigant, especially a pro se litigant, an opportunity to amend his
complaint."); Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013).
Mr. 	Schonabaum 	shall 	have 	through 	January 	8, 	2026, 	to 	file 	an
amended complaint.
The amended complaint must: (a) contain a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that Mr. Schonabaum is entitled to relief, which is sufficient
to provide the defendants with fair notice of the claim and its basis; (b) include
a demand for the relief sought; and (c) identify what injury he claims to have
suffered and what persons are responsible for each such injury. The clerk is
directed to include a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form along with
Mr. Schonabaum's copy of this Order, which he must use if he files an amended
complaint. See S.D. Ind. L.B. 8-1 (requiring pro se plaintiffs to use the clerk-
provided form for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Case 2:25-cv-00127-JPH-MG Document 21 Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Any amended complaint should have both the proper case number, 2:25-
cv-00127-JPH-MG, and the words "Amended Complaint" on the first page. The
amended complaint will completely replace the original. See Beal v. Beller, 847
F.3d 897, 901 (7th 	Cir. 2017) ("For pleading purposes, once an 	amended
complaint is filed, the original complaint drops out of the picture."). Therefore, it
must set out every defendant, claim, and factual allegation Mr. Schonabaum
wishes to purse in this action.
If 	Mr. 	Schonabaum 	files 	an 	amended 	complaint, 	it 	will 	be 	screened
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If no amended complaint is filed, this action will
be dismissed without further notice or opportunity to show cause.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
DAVID A. SCHONABAUM
301744
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY (CIF)
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5124 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
Date: 12/8/2025
Case 2:25-cv-00127-JPH-MG Document 21 Filed 12/08/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>