The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge
Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 unspecified defendants for depriving him of personal property, in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
COUNT 2: Against Defendant Bryant for tampering with his food trays, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
COUNT 3: Against unspecified defendants for conditions of his confinement, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
COUNT 4: Against Defendants Fritz, Carter and Witthrop for use of excessive force, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
COUNT 5: Against Defendant Fritz for filing false disciplinary charges, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
COUNT 6: Against Defendants Fritz and Liefer for conditions of his confinement, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
COUNT 7: Against Defendants Witthrop and Orange Crush Tact Team for use of excessive force, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
COUNT 8: Against Defendant Doctor John Doe for denial of medical treatment, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
COUNT 9: Against Defendants Fritz, Helmer and Esary for assault, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
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; ...