The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R Herndon District Judge
Inmates Anwar Randle, O'Shane Dismuke, Cory Crum, and David Chabitch bring this action for deprivations of their constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn1 Plaintiffs were warned of the hazards of joining group litigation, see Bouriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004), and the Court gave each inmate an opportunity to withdraw from this action (Doc. 20). 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.
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, 590 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true, some factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, No. 08-4286, 2009 WL 2535731, at *5 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2009).
Additionally, Courts "should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements." Id. At the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, No. 06-4260, 2009 WL 2498580, at *2 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2009).
The Plaintiffs assert that Southwestern Correctional Center administrative officials authorized a TACT team shakedown, resulting in the violation of several inmates' Constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Plaintiffs claim that the shakedown was unnecessary because there had been no prior disorderly conduct that would have made the shakedown a security requirement. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that the way the shakedown was actually performed violated their rights.
According to the complaint and attached exhibits, TACT team members arrived in Housing Unit 1 of the Southwestern Correctional Center around 7:00 AM on May 13, 2008 in full riot gear, clubs in hand. The Plaintiffs were told to strip naked in front of the ...