United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
who is currently incarcerated at Big Muddy River Correctional
Center (“Big Muddy”), brings this pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
three officials at Clay County Jail (“Jail”) who
allegedly violated his constitutional rights in July 2015
(see Doc. 1). Plaintiff claims that the sheriff, an
unknown correctional officer (“John Doe 1”), and
an unknown medical provider (“John Doe 2”)
subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement
when they refused to provide him with clothing and forced him
to sleep on the concrete floor in his Jail cell for
two-and-a-half days (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 8-18). He suffered an
infection and was treated at a hospital emergency room. He
now sues all three defendants for monetary damages
(id. at 6).
Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
case is before the Court for a preliminary review of the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under §
1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner
complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court is required to dismiss any portion
of the complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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.
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). The complaint is subject to dismissal under
to the complaint and attached exhibits, Plaintiff was
arrested in July 2015, while running naked through the woods
in Clay County, Illinois (Doc. 1, p. 11). He was taken into
custody by the Clay County Sheriff's Department
(id. at 5). For two-and-a-half days, Plaintiff was
denied clothing and forced to sleep on the concrete floor in
this same time period, Plaintiff developed a penile lesion,
which he attributes to these living conditions. The head of
his penis swelled to five times its normal size. A
“large whitehead” formed and then burst
(id.). He suffered intense pain and sensitivity.
Plaintiff rated the pain as a “7” or
“8” on a scale of “10, ” with
“10” being the most intense pain (id. at
15, 2015, he was taken to Clay County Hospital's
emergency room for treatment. There, he was diagnosed with a
glans penis papule one centimeter in size. Plaintiff was
tested for four sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV,
syphilis, chancroid, and lymphogranuloma venereum. He tested
positive for the latter two STDs, both of which are
characterized by genital, anal, or perianal
ulcers. Plaintiff was prescribed medication to
treat both conditions and complains of no ongoing symptoms.
sues the sheriff, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 for subjecting
him to constitutionally objectionable conditions of
confinement at the Jail that allegedly resulted in the
development of a painful penile lesion. Plaintiff seeks
monetary relief (id. at 6).
facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in
this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court finds it
appropriate to organize the claims in Plaintiff's pro
se complaint into the following enumerated counts:
Count 1: Defendants subjected Plaintiff to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Jail, when
they refused to provide him with clothing and forced him to
sleep on a concrete floor for two-and-a-half days in July
Count 2: Defendants denied Plaintiff adequate medical
care for his glans penis papule in ...