The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge:
In an order entered March 1, 2011 (Doc. 37), the Court found that many of the claims presented against Defendants in Plaintiff's complaint were unrelated to each other or to the other claims. The Court advised Plaintiff that it would reserve ruling on the claims against Defendants Peters, Unknown assistant warden of programs (AWP), Unknown adjustment committee members (ACM), and Turley until the unrelated claims against the other named Defendants were dismissed or severed. The Court has since severed those claims, and now intends to proceed with the initial review of the claims against Defendants Peters, Unknown assistant warden of programs (AWP), Unknown adjustment committee members (ACM), and Turley.
Plaintiff, an inmate currently in the Menard Correctional Center, was at all times relevant to this action housed in the Pinckneyville Correctional Center. Plaintiff 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, in pertinent part:
(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, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that some the claims in the complaint may be dismissed at this point in the litigation.
The following version of the facts of this case is gleaned from Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1). In March of 2010, while working in the prison's dietary department, Plaintiff was told by Defendant Peters that he should not return to work the next day with braids in his hair. When Plaintiff argued that it was his right to express himself, Defendant Peters told Plaintiff that he does not have rights in prison. Plaintiff and Defendant Peters continued to argue until Defendant Turley came into the room. Defendant Turley handcuffed Plaintiff, then escorted him to segregation, smacking Plaintiff in the back of the head before putting Plaintiff in his cell.
Sometime thereafter Plaintiff was taken to an adjustment committee hearing for the altercation. Defendants Unknown ACM and Unknown AWP informed Plaintiff that he was charged with dangerous communication, threats and intimidations, insolence, and disobeying a direct order. Defendants Unknown ACM and Unknown AWP found Plaintiff guilty and sent him to segregation. Discussion:
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court finds it appropriate to break the claims in Plaintiff's pro se complaint and other pleadings into numbered counts, as shown below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a ...