United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
WILLIAM A. MALONE, # B-52858, Plaintiff,
COUNSELOR SELBY, and MAJOR MALCOME, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. Chief District Judge
matter is before the Court for case management. On August 29,
2016, following the Memorandum and Order entered in
Malone v. Lashbrook, et al., Case No. 16-cv-200-SMY
(Doc. 1 in the instant case), this matter was severed from
the original case pursuant to George v. Smith, 507
F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007). The two claims in the instant
action, designated by the Court as Counts 7 and 8 in the
original case, are as follows:
Count 7: First Amendment claim against
Defendants Selby and Malcome for interfering with
Plaintiff's practice of his religion, by destroying or
discarding Plaintiff's bible concordance on October 9,
Count 8: Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendant Selby for threatening Plaintiff with segregation
over his use of the shower on October 10, 2014.
Plaintiff was informed in the order severing his claims, the
required preliminary review of these claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A is now due to be conducted.
§ 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must 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). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that “no
reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.”
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. 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, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th
Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or
implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a
plaintiff's 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 Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751
(7th Cir. 2011); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
these standards, the Court finds that one of Plaintiff's
claims survives threshold review under § 1915A.
noted in the order severing the claims (Doc. 1),
Plaintiff's narrative is very brief, consisting primarily
of a cursory list of grievances filed by Plaintiff, and
assertions of constitutional violations. He includes little
detail. The only allegations supporting Counts 7 and 8 are as
October 9, 2014, Plaintiff states that Defendant Selby:
“destroyed/discarded Plaintiff's Bible concordance
and Major Malcome condoned act.” (Doc. 2, p. 14).
October 10, 2014, he accuses Defendant Selby of
“Intimidation- Threats, Harassment that if Plaintiff
request/remains in shower over 15 min[utes] Plaintiff would
be walked to seg.” (Doc. 2, p. 14).
complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages. ...