United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. District Judge.
Kentes West, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings
this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.
originally filed this suit on April 11, 2016 in case No.
16-cv-414-SMY. That case underwent § 1915A screening on
August 29, 2016, at which time it was determined that
Plaintiff had stated unrelated claims and the present action
was severed out of Plaintiff's other claims. (Doc. 1).
related to the claims present in this case, Plaintiff has
alleged that on July 30, 2015, C/O Rakers decided not to feed
Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, p. 30). He tried to give Plaintiff an
empty tray, but “due to the fan on the wall being
blowing on the tray” Plaintiff knew something was not
right with about the tray, and told Rakers so. (Doc. 2, p.
30). Rakers opted not to give Plaintiff the tray. (Doc. 2, p.
30). Plaintiff asked C/O Cutts to look at the tray when he
walked past and Cutts allegedly told Plaintiff the tray was
empty. (Doc. 2, p. 30). Plaintiff then tried to complain to
Sgt. Harris, who told him to talk to his gallery officer
about it. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Plaintiff alleges that his gallery
officer refused to give him showers in the past and had
previously threatened him. (Doc. 2, p. 31). So Plaintiff
asked to speak to a Lieutenant. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Plaintiff
waited a while, but he still did not get a tray and a
Lieutenant never came by. (Doc. 2, p. 31). So Plaintiff
flooded his cell. (Doc. 2, p. 31).
guards responded to the flooding, they declined to address
Plaintiff's complaints about not getting a tray or Rakers
mistreating Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Lt. Eoavaldi told
Plaintiff that he “was going to get it today”
because Eoavaldi was tired of hearing his name. (Doc. 2, p.
31). Plaintiff refused to cuff up when Eoavaldi ordered him
to because he believed that Eoavaldi would beat him. (Doc. 2,
p. 31). Eoavaldi called Major Paige to the scene, but
Plaintiff would not cuff up for him either because he was
even angrier than Eoavaldi. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Eoavaldi and
Paige wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary report and called Orange
Crush to Plaintiff's cell. (Doc. 2, p. 31).
complied with Orange Crush's orders because he believed
that Orange Crush would not hurt him because they filmed the
cell extraction. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Despite his compliance,
Plaintiff was pepper sprayed, thrown to the ground, had his
head forced into the toilet, his hair pulled, and his
genitals were rubbed with pepper spray. (Doc. 2, p. 31).
Plaintiff's clothes and Nike gym shoes were thrown in the
trash. (Doc. 2, p. 31). He was placed in a cell with no
water, no working toilet, no ...