United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. District Judge
Sylvester Cunningham, an inmate in Federal Correctional
Institution Greenville, brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for events that happened at Lawrence Correctional
Center, where he was formerly incarcerated. 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). 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. 2009).
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
initial matter, Plaintiff's case caption only includes
Defendants that worked at Lawrence Correctional Center.
However, the body of the Complaint lists numerous Stateville
defendants, as well as factual allegations that occurred at
Stateville Correctional Center. Plaintiff attached an exhibit
to his Complaint that shows that this action was originally
filed in the Northern District of Illinois where that court
dismissed the Lawrence claims pursuant to George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 606 (7th Cir. 2007). It appears
from the exhibit that the Stateville claims were dismissed on
statute of limitations grounds. As Plaintiff's case
caption contains only the Lawrence Defendants, and he
included the exhibit regarding his earlier case, the Court
concludes that the inclusion of the Stateville claims is
merely unartful drafting, perhaps caused by recycling of
portions of the original Complaint, and not an improper
attempt to evade the effect of the Northern District's
rulings. Accordingly, Defendants Aquinaldo, Ghosh, Hardy,
Edwards, Sheehy, and Pounovich are DISMISSED with prejudice
from this action, and the Court will not consider
Plaintiff's claims arising out of Stateville Correctional
Center any further.
has been a paraplegic since 2006 and requires a wheelchair.
(Doc. 1, p. 5). He also uses catheters on a daily basis.
(Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff transferred into Lawrence
Correctional Center on March 9, 2013. (Doc. 1-1, p. 1) While
at Lawrence, Plaintiff was given single use catheters three
times a week, without any medical supplies to clean them out
after use. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The instructions on the package
specifically prohibit using the catheters more than once.
(Doc. 1-1, p. 10). Plaintiff developed bladder infections
because he was forced to reuse single use catheters. (Doc. 1,
also requested diapers, but his requests were ignored. (Doc.
1, p. 6). This caused him to soil himself in his sleep. (Doc.
1, p. 6). When he was given diapers, they were too small and
caused sores to form. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff was not given
daily physical therapy. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The cell he was
housed in had a sink and toilet that were not handicapped
accessible. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff was only permitted to
shower three times a week, and his requests for more showers
were denied. (Doc. 1, p. 6-7). Plaintiff requested daily
showers due to his inability to control his bladder and bowel
functions. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
does not associate any specific defendant with any of his
claims. Exhibits attached to the Complaint show that Reis
responded to grievances dated March 21, 2013, April 15, 2013,
April 29, 2013, and August 13, 2013. (Doc. 1-1). Someone
denied an emergency grievance on August 26, 2013 requesting
catheters and a new mattress, but the signature is cut off
the exhibit. (Doc. 1-1, p. 3). T.S. Keen rejected a grievance
submitted to the A.R.B. on September 10, 2013, but that
grievance did not address the issues presented by the
Complaint. (Doc. 1-1, p. 6). The director of nursing,
Cunningham, responded to a ...