The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:
E-FILED Friday, 18 May, 2012 02:07:18 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his claim of excessive force, inhumane conditions of confinement, and punishment without procedural due process.
The "privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the District Court's sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them." Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis "at any time" if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal claim. A hearing was scheduled to assist in this review, but the hearing will be cancelled as unnecessary.
To state a claim, the allegations must set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to give "'fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(add'l citation omitted). The factual "allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a 'speculative level.'" Id., quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555-56. However, pro se pleadings are liberally construed when applying this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff is confined at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act.
On or about July 9, 2011, Plaintiff was directed several times over the intercom to come to the kitchen and work. Plaintiff refused because it was his day off. Eventually, Defendant Haage came to Plaintiff's room and directed him to back up to the access hole in the door so that Plaintiff could be handcuffed. Plaintiff refused, and Haage called in an extraction team of six members.
Plaintiff capitulated when the extraction team arrived, backing up to the chuck hole with his hands behind him. After cuffs were placed, one of the extraction team members yanked the chain forcefully, pulling Plaintiff's hands up to his shoulders, causing "extensive damage" to Plaintiff's right hand. The incident was allegedly captured on video tape. The members of the extraction team were Defendants Chenoweth, Angel, Zimmerman, Keller, Teel, and Maloney.
Plaintiff was then forced to walk backwards to the health care unit and placed in a "glass jail cell." His clothes were torn off and the cell mattress was removed. For three days, the cell lacked operable plumbing or a mattress. Plaintiff was given only four squares of toilet paper on his third day.
Plaintiff was written a disciplinary report based on the incident, which apparently resulted in his segregation for thirty days. Plaintiff appears to be alleging that he did not receive adequate notice of the charges against him. He alleges ...