The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge
Plaintiff Jeffrey Mitchell, formerly an inmate in the Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
Mitchell's amended complaint (Doc. 19) is disjointed and difficult to follow.*fn1 However, he seems to have two major themes. First, he alleges use of excessive force by four officers on June 2, 2008. Second, he alleges a pattern of generalized harassment by other officers, as well as the failure of the administrative authorities to provide him with relief requested in his grievances. As discussed below, the claims of excessive force will proceed; all other claims will be dismissed.
Mitchell alleges that on June 2, 2008, he was dragged from his cell by Defendants Ruyan, Decker, DeBout,*fn2 and Harmon (Doc. 19, pp. 13-17). He states that they pulled his hair, punched him in the ribs, dragged him, stomped on him, and slammed his face forward.
The intentional use of excessive force by prison guards against an inmate without penological justification constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and is actionable under Section 1983. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992); DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 619 (7th Cir. 2000). "[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is. whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm." Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6-7.
Applying these standards to the allegations in the amended complaint, the Court is unable to dismiss this excessive force claims at this time.
Mitchell alleges that on January 29, 2008, Defendants Phillips and Mason conspired to bring false disciplinary charges against him (Doc. 19, p. 18). However, he provides no information about this incident, neither the nature of the charges nor the final result of any proceedings related to this ...