United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge
Brian Miller, currently an inmate in Pickneyville
Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights for
events that occurred at Shawnee 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:
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.
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 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, 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. 2009).
November 25, 2014, after the Internal Affairs
(“IA”) unit opened an investigation into alleged
marijuana use at Shawnee Correctional Center, Plaintiff was
placed on investigative status. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff
underwent a drug screen, which came back clean. (Doc. 1, p.
November 27, 2014, Plaintiff was brought to the IA office for
questioning. (Doc. 1, p. 8). He denied all knowledge of
contraband smuggling. (Doc. 1, p. 8). The IA officers asked
Plaintiff if he had smuggled contraband in during the visit
he had over the weekend. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff denied it.
(Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff believes the videos of the visit
would exonerate him. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff was questioned
again a few days later and he continued to deny that he knew
anything about drug smuggling. (Doc. 1, p. 8). The officers
told Plaintiff that if he cooperated, he would only get six
months segregation. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Plaintiff agreed to take
a polygraph test. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
December 15, 2014, before Plaintiff could take the polygraph
test, he received a disciplinary ticket for 601-aiding,
abetting, attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy, 203- drugs
& drug paraphernalia, and 110, impeding or interfering
with an investigation. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Approximately one
week later, Plaintiff was brought back to IA and “given
one last chance to cooperate.” (Doc. 1, p. 12). He was
told that the Marion Police were going to pick up his
girlfriend for helping smuggle contraband into the
institution. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Plaintiff continued to express
his innocence. (Doc. 1, p. 13).
December 23, 2014, Plaintiff was brought before the
Adjustment Committee. (Doc. 1, p. 13). He told the Committee
that he was innocent and that if he had had any
“weed”, he would have smoked it himself. (Doc. 1,
p. 13). The Adjustment Committee staff told Plaintiff that he
would receive a year in segregation and further stated
“It's not up to me, I was told to find you guilty
and deliver the sentence; it's out of my hands.”
(Doc. 1, p. 13-14).
was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center on January 28,
2015. (Doc. 1, p. 14). He was housed in the North Cell House
Segregation Unit, 1 gallery. (Doc. 1, p. 14). His cell had a
solid door and there were feces and dried blood on the walls.
(Doc. 1, p. 14). His request to change cells was denied.
(Doc. 1, p. 14). His request for cleaning supplies was also
denied. (Doc. 1, p. 14). He did not get any hygiene times.
(Doc. 1, p. 15). He developed rashes and bumps on his body
due to the filthy environment and the dirty, nasty mattress.
(Doc. 1, p. 15). The noise from the other inmates ...