The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Pinckneyville Correctional Center (PCC),*fn1 brings this action for violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for an allegedly denying him protective custody status at Menard Correctional Center (MCC) in violation of his right to due process of law and the Eighth Amendment. 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.
Liberally construing the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff had been placed on protective custody status at MCC. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Butler conducted a protective custody status hearing wherein Plaintiff was informed that his request for placement on protective custody was going to be denied. Plaintiff was informed, however, that he would remain in the protective custody unit on "kick out" status until his grievance concerning the denial of protective custody status could be heard. Plaintiff states that he did not receive a copy of the "IDOC protective custody status form" as required by Department of Correction's regulations. Defendants Hulick, Ford, and Walker are alleged to have approved Butler's decision to deny Plaintiff protective custody status. Plaintiff claims that the actions of the Defendants denied him due process of law and violate his Eighth Amendment rights.
In the complaint, Plaintiff sought injunctive relief from a decision denying him protective custody status at MCC. As noted above, Plaintiff is no longer at MCC, but instead is currently confined at PCC. Because there is no indication that Plaintiff has sought (or sought and been denied) protective custody status at PCC (or other prison facilities), the Court concludes that Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is moot. See Pearson v. Welborn, 471 F.3d 732, 743 (7th Cir. 2006); Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff's claim that the named Defendants denied him due process of law in connection with the denial of his request to be placed in protective custody should be dismissed pursuant to § 1915A. Classifications of inmates implicate neither liberty nor property interests. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976). Therefore, plaintiff has no constitutional right to a particular security classification. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 & n. 9 (1976). If the state elected to recognize such a right, then he would have an enforceable claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Smith v. Shettle, 946 F.2d 1250, 1252 (7th ...