United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
WILLIAM A. MALONE, Plaintiff,
HILL, BOWERMAN, and UNKNOWN PARTY Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. District Judge
William A. Malone, an inmate in Pickneyville Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff requests monetary damages. (Doc. 2-2, p. 15). 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; this action is subject to summary
claims were originally filed in Case No. 16-cv-200-SMY. On
August 29, 2016, that case underwent threshold review, and
the Court determined that many of Plaintiff's claims
failed to share a common nucleus of facts or parties. (Doc.
1). The Court therefore severed that case into multiple
actions, including this one. (Doc. 1).
Complaint alleges that on January 14, 2014, Hill witnessed
$250 of Plaintiff's property being stolen. (Doc. 2, p.
13). Approximately one week later on January 21, 2014,
Bowerman confiscated three bottles of washing detergent from
Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, p. 13). On March 22, 2014 and again on
June 11, 2014 the prison administration violated a court
order and confiscated indigent funds from Plaintiff. (Doc. 2,
p. 13). Finally, Plaintiff somewhat confusingly alleges that
on June 12, 2014, the inmate commissary had overcharged him
by 7% over three and a half years. (Doc. 2, p. 13).
the Court divided Plaintiff's claims in 16-cv-200 into
Order specifically split Count 3 into this case. As