United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
John Alan Conroy, an inmate in the United States Penitentiary
at Marion Correctional Center ("Marion") brings
this pro se action for alleged violations of his
constitutional rights by persons acting under the color of
federal authority. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This case is now before the
Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Conroy alleges that in June 2016 he was moved from a
three person cell to a single cell in the Sex Offender
Management Unit. On the unit, fellow inmate Billy Minner has
engaged in a course of harassing conduct that has caused
Plaintiff to fear for his safety and the security of his
personal property. In connection with his claims, the
Plaintiff has named the United States, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons ("BOP"), and inmate Minner. He seeks
injunctive relief moving Minner away from sex offenders,
directing the United States Attorney to investigate Minner
and requiring the BOP to review its policies and procedures.
He also seeks punitive damages and attorney's fees.
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).
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). 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.
Conversely, a complaint is plausible on its face "when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to
accept factual allegations as true, some factual allegations
may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide
sufficient notice of a plaintiffs claim. Brooks v.
Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally,
courts "should not accept as adequate abstract
recitations of the elements of a cause of action or
conclusory legal statements." Id. At the same
time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
2009). After carefully considering the allegations in the
Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs claims are subject
to dismissal under § 1915 A.
alleges that in June 2016 he was moved from a three man cell
in N-unit to a single cell in G-unit (Doc. 1 at 5). He was
located in the Sex Offender Management Program (SOMP) at the
facility, because he was convicted of a sex offense
(Id.). He alleges that the BOP allowed inmates to
have access to records about his offense of conviction by way
of the publication of court opinions on library computers
(Id.). He also alleges that the information
published was false, and that he has a claim of actual
claims that when he arrived at his new cell on G-unit,
Defendant Minner began harassing him by telling him he had no
vote on the white TV (Id. at 7). When Conroy
exhibited interest in the television, Minner would disable it
(Id.). Minner also harassed Conroy, saying he should
be "cut up like that girl." (Id.). Minner
has worked to spread the word and to create a hostile
environment for Conroy and other inmates (Id.).
Minner possesses no specific authority to create rules or to
harass others, but he has not been prevented from doing so
further alleges that he is not allowed to have visitors at
his cell, though he does not indicate why he has this ban
(Id. at 7). Each time he leaves his cell, he fears
that when he returns his belongings will be gone because his
belongings were stolen in the past by fellow inmates
(Id. at 7, 11).
asserts that the United States and the BOP are responsible
for the harassment because they create an environment
conducive to harassment by facilitating public access to case
records (Id. at 8). He claims that this constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth
support of his Complaint, Conroy appended an affidavit
wherein he recounted the same essential facts contained in
his Complaint (Id. at 12-13).
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 failure to protect
claim against the BOP and the United States for allowing
access to case records that led to harassment by fellow
Count 2: Eighth Amendment harassment or
cruel and unusual punishment claims against inmate Minner for
a course of harassing and intimidating conduct, including
harassment about the nature of ...