United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States 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. Plaintiff requests
monetary relief. (Doc. 2, p. 37-38). 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
originally filed this suit in Case No. 16-cv-414-SMY on April
11, 2016. On August 29, 2016, that Complaint underwent
screening pursuant to § 1915A, at which time certain
claims were severed into distinct actions for failure to
state related claims. Plaintiff's claim against Migneron
was severed into this action.
relates to this claim, Plaintiff has alleged: “still
being harassed I had a call pass for psych health care and
clothing room. C/O Migneron wouldn't allow me to go on
call passes.” (Doc. 2, p. 36). He then states that
mental health professional Myeres came to his door. (Doc. 2,
p. 36). That is the extent of the allegations in the
Complaint relevant to this claim. Plaintiff's exhibits
show that he had a call pass for lost laundry clothing
exchanged dated February 19, 2016, which appears not to have
been executed. (Doc. 2-2, p. 45).
Court's previous Order divided up Plaintiff's
Complaint into separate Counts. (Doc. 1). Count 17 was split
into this action:
17: Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference Claim against
Defendant Migneron for refusing to allow Plaintiff to leave
his cell on ...