United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Rodney Love, an inmate in Stateville Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that
allegedly occurred at Menard Correctional Center. 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
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 will be
dismissed when 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, 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 recitations of the elements of a cause of
action or conclusory legal statements.” Id. At
the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
careful review of the Amended Complaint and supporting
exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its
authority under § 1915A. Portions of this action are
subject to summary dismissal.
filed his original Complaint on August 24, 2015. (Doc. 1). On
October 2, 2015, the Court dismissed the Complaint without
prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 6).
Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff’s
allegations that he was exposed to mold, deprived of his
property, lost weight and that a guard threatened violence
when his attorney called, did not create a liberty interest.
(Doc. 6, p. 5). The Order further found that the conditions
described were the actions of individuals who are not parties
to this case, the conditions were not atypical per se and
that the one-year period, standing alone, did not create a
liberty interest. (Doc. 6, p. 6). As the Court found that no
liberty interest was implicated, it did not conduct further
analysis on Plaintiff’s due process claim. (Doc. 1, p.
6). The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s claim against
Shel Stillwell-Davis, because allegations that a defendant
wrote a false disciplinary report fail to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. (Doc. 6, p. 6). The Court
likewise dismissed claims against Richard Harrington and
Salvador Godinez on the grounds that Harrington had no notice
of the alleged violations and that Godinez was not personally
involved. (Doc. 6, p. 6-7).
filed his Amended Complaint on November 3, 2015. (Doc. 7).
The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Stillwell-Davis
generated a false disciplinary report on November 20, 2013
for 103- bribery, extortion and 601- aiding, abetting,
attempt, solicitation. (Doc. 7, p. 3). Prior to his hearing,
Plaintiff informed the adjustment committee in writing that
he wished to call his cellmate, Seith Williams, as a
witness. (Doc. 7, p. 3). On November 27, 2013, the
Adjustment Committee held a disciplinary hearing during which
Plaintiff again verbally requested that the committee call
his cellmate. He was told that Williams would not be needed
as a witness. (Doc. 7, p. 4). The report also omits
Plaintiff’s witness request. (Doc. 7, p. 4). Plaintiff
pleaded not guilty. (Doc. 7, p. 4). However, the Adjustment
Committee found him guilty, based on Stillwell-Davis’
disciplinary report. Plaintiff received 1 year segregation, 1
year C-grade, 1 year commissary restriction, and a
disciplinary transfer. (Doc. 7, p. 5).
Pontiac Correctional Center, it is common for inmates to
throw urine and feces on each other. (Doc. 7, p. 6). The
inmates also engage in verbal abuse of one another, including
shouting and beating on desks and cell doors at all hours.
(Doc. 7, p. 7). Plaintiff alleges that the shouting kept him
from sleeping at night. (Doc. 7, p. 7). Plaintiff was also
forced to take his exercise alone, in contrast to at Menard
and Stateville, where inmates in segregation can engage in
recreational activities with other prisoners, such as
basketball, card games, and dominos. (Doc. 7, p. 7).
the Court determined that Plaintiff’s ...