United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Darnell Compton, an inmate currently incarcerated at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center
("Pinckneyville"), brings this pro se action for
alleged violations of his constitutional rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants conspired to violate his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by serving him a soy-based diet
and forcing him to spend money at the commissary. He seeks
compensatory and punitive damages.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section
1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner
Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court is required to dismiss any portion
of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
entered the Illinois Department of Corrections
("IDOC") on April 29, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He
started eating a soy-based diet at that time and alleges that
he immediately began to suffer from "severe"
medical injuries. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
about October 4, 2015, Plaintiff suffered from severe
constipation that lasted approximately 14 days. (Doc. 1, p.
5). As a result of the constipation, Plaintiff tore his anus.
(Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff filed a medical request slip, but
it was allegedly ignored. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He then filed a
grievance on November 11, 2015, which also went ignored.
(Doc. 1, p. 5). A duplicate grievance filed in December 2015
got the same results and in January 2016, the director
refused to answer. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
then began experiencing severe stomach pains, headaches, gas,
fatigue, loss of circulation and bouts of constipation that
last between 7 and 12 days. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Defendants
Baldwin and Godinez never responded to Plaintiffs grievances
regarding his colplaints about his diet. He spoke with
Spiller in person in December 2015 and she allegedly told him
to spend more money in the commissary if he did not want to
eat the soy. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants serve soy because it's cheaper. (Doc. 1, p.
5). Plaintiff also wrote two letters to Defendant Bailey, but
she did not respond. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He requested a soy-free
diet, but has not received a response. (Doc. 1, p. 6)
on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to divide
the pro se Complaint into the following enumerated
claims. The parties and the Court will use these designations
in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed
by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these
counts does not constitute an opinion regarding their merit.
Count 1:Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants for endangering Plaintiffs health by serving him a
Count 2:Conspiracy claim against Defendants
for the soy diet; and,
Count 3:Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Defendants for failing to respond to grievances regarding the
three claims shall be dismissed at this time.