The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert U. S. District Judge
Plaintiff Brandon Baker brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Baker presents three distinct claims, as set forth here for clarity: COUNT 1: Against Defendant Alfon for deliberate indifference to his medical needs with regard to treatment of his seizures, on or about June 5, 2009, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
COUNT 2: Against Defendants Alsip and Perkins for issuing a false disciplinary report against him on June 17, 2009, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. COUNT 3: Against Defendants Parker, Lt. McCuan, Favors, Copel, Hileman, C/O McCuan and
Barker for use of excessive force on July 18, 2009, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
In an order entered June 17, 2010 (Doc. 10), the Court advised Baker that he could not bring these three unrelated claims in one action. Baker was also advised that Count 2 and Count 3 would be severed into two new actions, unless he chose to voluntarily dismiss those claims within 30 days.
Baker quickly responded with a notice of voluntary dismissal of those claims (Doc. 11).*fn1
Accordingly, Count 2 and Count 3 are DISMISSED on Baker's motion.
Only Count 1 remains 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 ...