United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge.
Eddie Griffin, a former inmate of Vienna Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests
compensatory damages. This 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.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. This action is subject to summary
makes a variety of unrelated allegations in his Complaint.
Specifically, he alleges that Vienna Correctional Center is
overcrowded and that the toilet facilities are inadequate.
(Doc. 1, pp. 8-9). He further alleges that cell conditions
are poor (Doc. 1, pp. 8, 10, 13), that it is understaffed and
the staff has poor attitudes (Doc. 1, p. 8), that the staff
is racist (Doc. 1, p. 9) and that the food is bad and
aggravates Plaintiff's health conditions. Id. He
did not receive treatment for his Hepatitis C. (Doc. 1, p.
10). Internal Affairs allegedly told others that Plaintiff
was a gang banger, when he is not. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Prisoners
are not given adequate cash allowances and clothing when
released from prison. Id.
4, 2016, Plaintiff got into an argument with his cellmate,
Harry Hunter, a 32 year old inmate. (Doc. 1, p. 21).
Plaintiff is 65 years old. Id.. Defendant Coats
responded to the cell and told the prisoners that he would
not call the lieutenant until he saw blood. Id.
Hunter then jumped Plaintiff from behind, threw him into the
bed, threw him into the toilet and kicked and stomped him.
Id. Hunter then ran into the day room where Coats
was standing. Id. Plaintiff got a shower brush and
followed. Id. He hit Hunter once with the shower
brush and Coats stepped between Plaintiff and Hunter.
Id. Plaintiff was taken to the emergency room for
his injuries. (Doc. 1, p. 22). He subsequently received a
bill for his treatment, which he alleges IDOC should pay
because he was in their care at the time of the fight.
Id. Plaintiff continues to suffer aches and pains
from the fight. Id.
Complaint will be dismissed as a sanction for making a
material omission to the Court. Plaintiff used this
Court's standard form to draft his Complaint. Section 2
asks about any other lawsuits Plaintiff has filed regarding
his imprisonment. Plaintiff checked the “no” box
on the form and affirmatively answered that he had not filed
any previous lawsuits to each subsequent question in this
section. This assertion is patently false. According to the
PACER case locator system, Plaintiff has filed four other
lawsuits in the district courts (1:1993-cv-1171),
(1:2015-cv-8039), (1:2016-cv-5124), (1:2016-cv-10922) and
appealed to the Seventh Circuit once (16-2472). Additionally,
Plaintiff has been assessed strikes for filing frivolous
lawsuits in Case No. 16-cv-5124 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2016) and
Case No. 15-8039 (N.D. Ill. October 20, 2015).
Seventh Circuit has found dismissal appropriate when an
inmate plaintiff fails to disclose his litigation history.
Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543-44 (7th Cir.
2011); Willis v. State of Illinois, No. 15-C-1332,
(N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2015) aff'd Willis v. State of
Illinois, No. 15-1735, (7th Cir. July 17, 2015). Here,
because Plaintiff failed to disclose his litigation history
and in fact affirmatively stated that he had no litigation
history, his case will be dismissed. Plaintiff's omission
is particularly egregious in light of his strikes. The fact
that Plaintiff has been assessed two strikes in the past
suggests that the omission is not in good faith and that
Plaintiff is deliberately attempting to mislead the Court.
The Court also notes that both strikes occurred ...