The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge:
Plaintiff Francis Combs filed this action while he was an inmate in the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois ("Marion"). He is now on supervised release. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §1346, 2671-2680. This Court granted Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and his initial partial filing fee has been received. 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, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, 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).
Upon careful review of the complaint and supporting exhibits, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims should receive further consideration.
Plaintiff alleges that during a previous incarceration at Marion, he had a medical permit for assignment to a low bunk (Doc. 1, p. 2). When Plaintiff was returned to Marion in April 2010 after his supervised release was revoked, he was assigned to an upper bunk because his low bunk restriction had expired.
Plaintiff reapplied for, and was issued, another low bunk permit on May 18, 2010. This order stated "no climbing; no ladders/no upper bunk; and no lifting more than 15 pounds" (Doc. 1-1, p. 2). On the same day, Plaintiff gave Defendant Jarrett (the unit counselor) a copy of the permit and asked for reassignment to a lower bunk. Defendant Jarrett repeatedly put off the move despite Plaintiff's daily reminders to him, including bringing another inmate with him to inform Defendant Jarrett that an unoccupied low bunk was available in the other inmate's cell.
On May 24, 2010, Plaintiff fell off his top bunk while he was attempting to climb down. Plaintiff was knocked unconscious and suffered a concussion, a broken rib, and injuries to his back and neck. Plaintiff continues to suffer ongoing medical problems stemming from these injuries, and claims ...