The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff claims that officers at Lawrence Correctional Center give him inadequate time to consume his food at meals, amounting to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that correctional officers give inmates seven minutes from the last man who sits down to eat their meals. Because plaintiff receives a soy-free meal, he is often one of the last inmates seated, and thus only has seven minutes to eat.
Plaintiff further claims he grieved this matter with Wardens Hodge and Storm. Although he does not allege so in his complaint, plaintiff's attached grievances indicate that, in retaliation for filing grievances, Officer Downen forced plaintiff to go to the end of the food line ensuring that he would be the last person served. Thereafter, Officer Sims also retaliated against plaintiff by ordering his wing to leave the dining area five minutes after plaintiff had received his meal.
Thereafter, officers McCormick, Carter, and Johnson shook down his cell in retaliation for filing these grievances.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint. Accepting plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court finds that plaintiff has articulated a colorable federal cause of action:
Count 1: A claim against defendants McCormick, Carter, Johnson, and Downen for retaliation against plaintiff for the exercise of his constitutionally protected right to file grievances.
Count 2: A claim against defendants Hodge, Storm, Downen, and Sims for failing to allow plaintiff adequate time to eat his meals, amounting to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Defendants Hodge and Storm are dismissed from Count 2 with prejudice for the following reason. The doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to § 1983 actions, and there is no allegation that defendants Hodge and Storm were personally responsible for the alleged wrong. See Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001).
Defendants Adams, J. Tanner, T. Brake, Rousch, Rucker, Marshoff, and Ausbrook are dismissed because Plaintiff makes no allegations against them plausibly suggesting a right to relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
The following defendants are DISMISSED from this action with prejudice: Hodge, Storm, Adams, J. Tanner, T. Brake, Rousch, Rucker, Marshoff, and Ausbrook.
The following defendants remain in the instant action: McCormick, Carter, Johnson, Downen, and Sims.
As to service of process on defendants McCormick, Carter, Johnson, Downen, and Sims, the Court recognizes that because plaintiff is incarcerated he may have difficulty effectuating service within the 120 day time limit imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff has not sought or been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, therefore, the Court will not automatically appoint the United States Marshal to effect service of process upon defendants. However, if plaintiff desires to request the appointment of the United States Marshal to serve process on the defendants, plaintiff shall file a motion for service of process at government expense, within 35 days of the date of entry of this ...