The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge.
Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the Big Muddy River Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3), and the Court finds that he is, in fact, indigent; therefore, this motion is GRANTED.*fn1
This case arises from an incident that occurred on October 4, 2004, when Plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate. Plaintiff advised Defendant Johnson of what had happened, and Johnson directed Plaintiff back to the cell he shared with his assaulter. Plaintiff refused to return to his cell, afraid that he might be assaulted again. Shortly thereafter, Johnson summoned Defendant Conrad, who took Plaintiff to the health care unit; Conrad later took Plaintiff to segregation for refusing his housing assignment. A disciplinary ticket was written, but the details of that ticket are not stated. It appears that Plaintiff was found guilty by Defendants Chapman and Montes; he was punished with the loss of one month of good conduct credit, and that punishment was approved by Defendant Lambert.
Plaintiff then attempted to appeal this finding through the grievance procedure. He submitted his first grievance to Defendant Miller on December 10, 2004; she returned it to him six days later indicating that it needed to be written in ink. Plaintiff rewrote the grievance as directed, but it was later dismissed for not being filed in a timely manner. From December 2004 through April 2005, Plaintiff claims he wrote numerous requests to Lambert attempting to overturn this punishment. On April 6, 2005, upon the recommendation of Winsor, Lambert reinstated the revoked good conduct credit. Plaintiff alleges that he was due to be released from custody on April 27, 2005. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Eubanks failed to file the appropriate paperwork with Defendant Walker, and Defendant Sandage failed to provide proper notice to Walker regarding the reinstatement of Plaintiff's good conduct credit. due to administrative delays in reinstating his good conduct credit, Plaintiff was not released on April 27; no specific information is provided on the date of Plaintiff's release from custody.*fn2
Plaintiff has set forth four separate claims in his complaint, but the Court finds these designations to be inefficient and unclear. Therefore, to facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(f) and 10(b), the Court finds it appropriate to break the claims in Plaintiff's pro se complaint into numbered counts, as shown below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.
COUNT 1: Against defendants Chapman, Montes, Lambert, Eubanks and Sandage for violating his rights to due process.
COUNT 2: Against Defendant Johnson for deliberate indifference to his safety.
COUNT 3: Against Defendant Miller for interfering with his efforts to file a grievance.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening.-- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.-- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief ...