United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
GEROUND BROWN, No. M47675, Plaintiff
B. HOLLOMAN, R. CHERIM, and SGT. MYERS Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge
Geround Brown, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights for events that
allegedly occurred at Vienna 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). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). 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. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the 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 Complaint and supporting exhibits, the
Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under
§ 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.
October 2, 2015, Defendant B. Holloman wrote Plaintiff a
disciplinary ticket. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff alleges that
the ticket was false. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The ticket states that
Plaintiff signed a statement that he had a homemade weapon in
his possession that he had made for protection in case he
ever needed it. (Doc. 1, p. 19). The disciplinary report
further states that Plaintiff admitted that he fabricated the
weapon from a piece of plastic with a razorblade and that he
used it to threaten another inmate for money. (Doc. 1, p.
19). Plaintiff denies making these statements and alleges
that his signature was forged. (Doc. 1, p. 6, 9). He further
denies that he ever had a weapon in his possession. (Doc. 1,
had an Adjustment Committee hearing on October 9, 2015. (Doc.
1, p. 7). Defendants Cherim and Myers were on the adjustment
committee. (Doc. 1, p. 8, 14). Plaintiff alleges that he was
not given a copy of the charges prior to the hearing or given
the opportunity to have witnesses present. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Plaintiff was originally sentenced to 6 months C grade, 3
months segregation, 3 months revocation of good conduct
credit and a disciplinary transfer. (Doc. 1, p. 15). However,
his hearing was remanded on October 13, 2015. This time,
Plaintiff received 1 year C grade, 1 year segregation, 1 year
revocation of good conduct credit and a disciplinary
transfer. (Doc. 1, p. 8, 15). Plaintiff alleges that he was
not issued a ticket for the second hearing and that the
second hearing did not address any additional information.
(Doc. 1, p. 8, 15). Documents submitted in support of his
Complaint show that Plaintiff's first sentence was
ultimately reinstated after he appealed to the Administrative
Review Board (“ARB”). (Doc. 1, p. 10, 20).
the ARB's reduction, Plaintiff should have been released
from segregation at Menard on January 2, 2016. (Doc. 1, p.
11). Due to a paperwork error, he was not released until
February 25, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Plaintiff alleges that
while in segregation in Menard, he became aggravated,
depressed, stressed, and sad and was deprived of privileges,
visiting days and telephone use. (Doc. 1, p. 11). His cell
lacked a window to the outside. (Doc. 1, p. 12). He was not
permitted to speak to other inmates. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
Plaintiff's cell was small, which made it difficult to
exercise and the sanitation in the cell was poor. (Doc. 1, p.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to consolidate the pro se action into one count.
The parties and the Court will use this designation in all
future pleadings and orders, ...