The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
Plaintiff, a prisoner at the St. Clair County Jail, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this action, Plaintiff seeks damages for allegedly unlawful conditions of confinement and allegedly unlawful actions taken against him while confined. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 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). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 ( 2007). 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.
Plaintiff's pro se complaint is divided into seven numbered paragraphs. After reviewing the complaint, however, the Court finds it appropriate to rearrange the factual allegations into six counts, as stated 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 Walker and Ampadue for denying Plaintiff adequate medical care for a tooth condition. Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that he and Walker had a confrontation and, in retaliation, Walker falsely claimed that Plaintiff was not taking his prescribed pain medication. Walker's report caused Ampadue to discontinue Plaintiff's prescription.
COUNT 2: Against nurse Kari for giving Plaintiff a shot without getting permission from a physician to administer the medication.
COUNT 3: Against Defendant Walker for spitting in Plaintiff's face after he accused her of ...