United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge.
Jean-Marc Faison, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests
injunctive relief and punitive damages.
27, 2016, the claim in this case was severed from a case
Plaintiff originally filed on June 2, 2016 (Doc. 1). Since
these claims were severed, Plaintiff has filed two motions.
The first motion, filed on August 4, 2016, states that
Plaintiff does not wish to sue Defendant Ward in a separate
action and wants to voluntarily dismiss the action before any
filing fees are assessed. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff also filed a
Motion for Reconsideration, again stating that he did not
intend to proceed in a separate case and asking the Court to
dismiss the case prior to assessing an additional filing fee.
(Doc. 7). That motion was filed August 11, 2016. The Court
assessed a filing fee on August 3, 2016, prior to either
motion being filed. (Doc. 5). Because it appears that
Plaintiffs main purpose in moving to dismiss this action was
to avoid the imposition of a filing fee and because the fee
has already been imposed, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs
Motion to Dismiss and his Motion to Reconsider and proceed to
threshold review. If Plaintiff wishes to voluntarily dismiss
his case after threshold review, he may do so.
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.3d816, 821 (7th Cir.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
alleges that during a urine test for drugs, Defendant Ward
asked him to show his penis. (Doc. 2, p. 5). Plaintiff
requested a pat-down instead, but Defendant Ward insisted
that he watch Plaintiff urinate. (Doc. 2, p. 5).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into one count. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, ...