United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. Chief District Judge.
Carlos Montanez, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests
equitable relief and monetary damages. 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.
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
began this case by filing a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, in lieu of an actual Complaint, on December 22,
2015. (Doc. 1). The Court ordered him to file a proper
Complaint no later than February 5, 2016 and denied the
preliminary injunction. (Doc. 4). On January 21, 2016,
Plaintiff filed the present Complaint. (Doc. 5).
the Court could review it, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave
to File an Amended Complaint on February 4, 2016, one day
prior to the Court's original deadline. (Doc. 12). The
Court permitted the amendment, but because Plaintiff did not
actually submit a proposed amended complaint in accordance
with Local Rule 15.1, the Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to
submit an amended complaint containing all claims and
defendants that Plaintiff wished to pursue. (Doc. 13). On
March 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw his
request to file an amended Complaint, which the Court denied
as Moot, because Plaintiff had not met the conditions for
filing an amended complaint in any event. (Doc. 25). Since
that time, Plaintiff has filed numerous “declarations,
” documents not contemplated by the Federal Rules of
27, 2016, Plaintiff filed another motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. (Doc. 33). Like his previous motion, this
motion also failed to include a proposed amended complaint.
However, the substance of the motion indicates that Plaintiff
only wishes to change the spelling of Defendant
“Trust” to Defendant “Trost.” That
request is GRANTED. (Doc. 33). Despite
Plaintiff's multiple “declarations, ” the
Court will abide by its earlier Order and review the
Complaint filed on January 21, 2016. The Court does not
construe any of the declarations to be a proper amended
complaint and does not consider them as part of its threshold
inmate assaulted Plaintiff on October 7, 2015. (Doc. 5, p.
27). As a result of the assault, Plaintiff suffered head
injuries, specifically the bones of his skull around the
eyes, forehead, and nose were cracked, and he further
suffered from lacerations and a concussion. (Doc. 5, p. 27).
A surgeon at Barnes Jewish Hospital told Plaintiff he needed
surgery to repair the damage. (Doc. 5, p. 27). However, due
to the swelling around Plaintiff's face, the surgery
could not be performed immediately. (Doc. 5, p. 27).
of getting the surgery, Plaintiff was transferred back to
Menard on October 9, 2015. (Doc. 5, p. 27). Plaintiff was
told by Harrington, Quadt, and Defendant Skidmore that he
needed to sign for protective custody on October 13, 2015
because he was being released from health care. (Doc. 5, p.
28). Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Trost never performed an
examination or provided him with any pain medication, and
deliberately ignored the recommendations of the Barnes Jewish
doctors. (Doc. 5, p. 28). Plaintiff asked Ms. Hill to
intervene. (Doc. 5, p. 28). She spoke to Skidmore, and
reported to Plaintiff that he was not going to get surgery,
but would be permitted to stay in the health care unit until
his injuries healed. (Doc. 5, p. 28). Plaintiff suffered