United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, United States District Judge.
Quinten Davis, an inmate in Western Illinois Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
events that happened at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”). Plaintiff requests compensatory and
punitive damages. This case is now before the Court for a
preliminary review of the Amended 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 Amended Complaint and supporting
exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its
authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are
subject to summary dismissal.
originally filed this action on April 12, 2016. (Doc. 1).
That Complaint was stricken because a page was missing; it
was later refiled. (see Docs. 5, 6). Before the Court could
conduct a § 1915A review, Plaintiff moved to amend his
Complaint twice. (Doc. 10) (Doc. 11). The Court granted
Plaintiff's motions on May 12, 2016. (Doc. 13). The
Amended Complaint was filed on May 12, 2016. (Doc. 14). The
Court now reviews the Amended Complaint.
March 2, 2015, a fight occurred on the Menard prison yard.
(Doc. 14, p. 8). As a result of the fight, Plaintiff was
placed on investigative status in segregation by Hof and Lee.
(Doc. 14, p. 8). Lashbrook and Butler approved this
placement. (Doc. 14, p. 9). Plaintiff alleges that no
evidence linked him to the fight. (Doc. 14, p. 8). Plaintiff
did not receive an investigative report, and he was in
investigative segregation for thirty one days before he
received a disciplinary report, which was signed by Hof.
(Doc. 14, p. 9). Ziegler and Westfall also signed the ticket.
(Doc. 14, p. 9).
alleges that Rubach, who presumably served the ticket, did
not give Plaintiff a chance to sign it or allow him to
request witnesses. (Doc. 14, p. 9). Plaintiff also alleges
that when he originally saw the ticket, it was not signed by
the hearing investigator. (Doc. 14, p. 18) He alleges that
the original copy of the ticket was altered at a later time
to reflect both the hearing investigator's signature and
that Plaintiff refused to sign for the ticket. (Doc. 14, p.
9) (Doc. 14-1, p. 15). Plaintiff told the hearing committee
that the ticket was deficient, but they ignored the errors.
(Doc. 14, p. 12).
was charged with creating a dangerous disturbance, impeding
an investigation, and fighting. (Doc. 14, p. 10). Part of the
evidence that the committee relied on was a report that
stated that the first time that Plaintiff was interviewed
regarding the assault, he stated that he was lifting weights
during the fight. (Doc. 14, p. 10). The second time Plaintiff
was interviewed, he said that he was on the phone. (Doc. 14,
p. 10). The ticket alleged that there was no record of
Plaintiff being on the phone, but Plaintiff states that his
own records show that he made a ten minute phone call to his
brother on that day. (Doc. 14, p. 10) (Doc. 14, p. 22).
Plaintiff alleges that inmate witnesses, Lumar Parish and
Demetrius Jones, would have testified to his innocence. (Doc.
14, p. 11). Plaintiff received one year segregation, one year
revocation of good time credit (since restored), one year
C-Grade, and one year commissary restriction. (Doc. 14, p.
has suffered from anxiety, sleep deprivation, depression,
emotional distress, mental breakdowns, and
“instabilities, ” for which he takes psychotropic
medications. (Doc. 14, p. 12). While in segregation,
Plaintiff was exposed to loud noise, including banging and
shouting. (Doc. 14, p. 12). He also suffered from loss of
privileges, including fewer contact visits. (Doc. 14, p. 12).
Plaintiff also was housed in a small cell that lacked
adequate ventilation. (Doc. 14, p. 14). The heat was
unbearable in the summer. (Doc. 14, p. 14). Plaintiff
experienced breathing difficulties and other symptoms,