The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Stateville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief for alleged violations 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. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint (with attached amended complaint) (Doc. 7).
Rule 15(a)(1)(A) states that Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course before being served with a responsive pleading. Because this case is still under threshold review, Defendants have not been served and, therefore, no responsive pleading has been served. Therefore, while Plaintiff does not technically need leave to file his complaint, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
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).
Liberally construing the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on February 9, 2006, Defendant Hathaway directed that Plaintiff be placed in a "suicide watch cell" after Plaintiff refused to take down his hair braids. During this confrontation, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Sommer falsely told Hathaway that Plaintiff had stated that he would kill himself. Plaintiff contends that Hathaway placed him in a "suicide watch" cell, without any clothing or blankets, that had "frigid temperatures." Plaintiff states that he remained in the cell for four days. As a result, Plaintiff contends that he suffered "hypothermia.".
Plaintiff alleges that on March 14, 2006, Defendant Sommer slammed Plaintiff's face into a cell door causing injuries to his face.
Plaintiff further alleges that on March 23, 2006, Defendant Sommer slammed him into a cell causing injuries to Plaintiff's right shoulder, collar bone, and lower back. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Sommer falsely charged him with a disciplinary report for assaulting prison staff in an attempt to cover-up Sommer's wrongdoing. Plaintiff contends that on March 26, 2006, Defendants Groaning and Trigg found him guilty of this conduction violation because they were acting in a conspiracy with Sommer and Hathaway to kill Plaintiff. As a result of the disciplinary charge, Plaintiff received the ...