The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois, brings this action for alleged violations of his constitutional rights by persons acting under the color of federal authority. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff previously was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and he has tendered his initial partial filing fee as ordered.
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 and other pleadings 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 Baning and Whitehouse for violations of due process in a March 10, 2005, disciplinary hearing.
COUNT 2: Against Defendants Gelios, Revell, Smith, and Chambers for cruel and unusual conditions of confinement.
COUNT 3: Against Defendant Gelios for violations of due process in a May 12, 2005, disciplinary hearing.
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 may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim.
On February 18, 2005, Plaintiff was placed in segregation pending a disciplinary investigation. On March 1, 2005, Officer Sellers (not a defendant) placed Plaintiff in a "dry cell" and later Defendant Baning asked him if he needed to urinate. Plaintiff replied that he did not. A few hours later, Plaintiff was charged with refusing to provide a urine sample for drug testing. At a subsequent disciplinary hearing Defendant Whitehouse found Plaintiff guilty of the charge and disciplined him with 30 days in segregation and revocation of 40 days of good conduct credit. Plaintiff argues that he should not have been found guilty of the charges because it was unclear at the time that Defendant Baning was requesting a urine sample and therefore the procedures used were contrary to the policies and regulations of the Bureau of Prisons for collecting urine samples for drug testing. Plaintiff also argues that ...