United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
COREY B. WILSON, Plaintiff,
SCOTT WRIGHT, and PHILLIP MCLAURIN Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Corey Wilson, an inmate in Western Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that
allegedly occurred while he was incarcerated in St. Clair
County Jail. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive
damages. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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; portions of this Complaint are subject to
September 23, 2015, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee in the
custody of the St. Clair County Jail, in Belleville,
Illinois. (Doc. 1-1, p. 12). Plaintiff was transported to the
St. Clair County courthouse that day wearing leg shackles and
waist cuffs. Id. Wright was the officer in charge of
transport and maintaining order in the courthouse.
Id. Wright escorted Plaintiff to a holding tank on
the 3rd floor. Id. There are two 6 foot by 6 foot
holding tanks, each with a secure door with a screen or mesh
met with his attorney at approximately 2 pm. (Doc. 1-1, p.
13). While returning to the holding cell area, the inmate in
holding cell #1, Michael Brock, called Plaintiff a name.
Id. Plaintiff spat at Brock through the mesh window.
Id. Wright then grabbed Plaintiff by the back of his
jumpsuit, and employed a hip-style throw down to take
Plaintiff to the floor, ripping Plaintiff's jumpsuit in
the process. (Doc. 1-1, p. 14). Plaintiff's knee and head
struck the concrete floor. Id. Plaintiff skinned his
knee. Id. Plaintiff also cut his face above his left
eyebrow. Id. Plaintiff remained shackled throughout
the entire incident. Id. Wright placed Plaintiff
back in holding cell #2, and then called a nurse to come see
him. Id. The nurse bandaged Plaintiff and then he
was taken back to the county jail. (Doc. 1-1, p. 15).
was examined by a nurse at the jail. Id. Plaintiff
alleges that he should have been monitored for a concussion.
Id. Plaintiff also alleges that someone forged his
signature on a medical services refusal form on September 30,
2015, when he was scheduled for a follow-up visit.
Id. Plaintiff began the grievance process on January
24, 2016 because he experienced vision loss in his left
peripheral vision. (Doc. 1-1, p. 16). He also experienced
migraines and neck pain. Id. Plaintiff was
eventually found to have significant loss of vision in his
left eye. Id.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 2 counts. The
parties and the Court will use this designation in all future
pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial