PAUL S. MORROW, # N72090, Plaintiff,
S.A. GODINEZ, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. PATRICK MURPHY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Paul S. Morrow, currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard"), brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 24 prison officials and health care providers (16 of whom are named and 8 are yet to be identified). According to the complaint, Plaintiff was handcuffed and beaten by prison guards in October 2012, and subsequently denied medical treatment for his injuries. Plaintiff's efforts to lodge administrative grievances regarding those events were stifled because his grievances were either not delivered or were ignored-he does not know which because inquiries about whether his grievances were delivered have gone unanswered.
By Order dated May 3, 2013 (Doc. 7), the Court conducted a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissing multiple defendants, but allowing the following claims to proceed:
COUNT 1: an Eighth Amendment claim regarding excessive force, against C/O HOOD, C/O CHEATHAM and UNIDENTIFIED OTHERS;
COUNT 2: an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants STARKWEATHER, DAVIS, MAYER and UNIDENTIFIED OTHERS; and
COUNT 3: an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Defendants GREATHOUSE, LANG, and an UNIDENTIFIED OPTOMETRIST and SICK CALL NURSES.
However, the Order neglected to address the fates of Defendants J. Lashbrook and C/O Phelps, which this Order shall now remedy.
The Applicable Standard of Review
Section 1915A 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). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross "the line between possibility and plausibility. Id. at 557. 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts "should not accept as adequate abstract ...