The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate at the St. Clair County Jail, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks damages for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights. 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). 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).
Briefly, Plaintiff alleges that on February 20, 2008, he was involved in a fight with several inmates. After the fight, Plaintiff claims he was beaten and kicked in the head and side by Defendants Blackburn, Scott, and McPeak. Plaintiff further alleges that he was not resisting these officers and that some of the blows were struck after Plaintiff had been retrained in handcuffs. As a result of these acts, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered pain and blood in his urine. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Blackburn placed him in cell with prisoners who were not handcuffed and shackled while Plaintiff was both handcuffed and shackled.
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide Plaintiff's pro se action into two counts. 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 Blackburn, Scott, and McPeak for allegedly using excessive force against him in violation of Plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
COUNT 2: Against Defendant Blackburn for subjecting Plaintiff to excessive risk of harm in the form of an attack by other inmates for placing Plaintiff, who was handcuffed and shackled, in a cell with prisoners who were not handcuffed and shackled, in violation of Plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.*fn1
Upon careful review of the complaint and the supporting exhibits, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Blackburn, Scott, and McPeak should not be dismissed at this point in the litigation. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant St. Clair County Sheriff's ...