United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge
Reginald Lacy, an inmate in Robinson Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.
April 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance complaining about
how his legal mail was handled. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Unsatisfied
with the response, he appealed the grievance to Defendant
Rains. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Rains sent
Defendants Erickson and Bickers to retaliate against him.
Id. Specifically, on April 22, 2016, Plaintiff
received a memorandum from Erickson stating that he was
unassigned, meaning that he had been terminated from his
library job. Id. After filing a grievance, Plaintiff
learned he was unassigned due to administrative concerns.
(Doc. 1, p. 7).
sent Erickson a request slip on May 3, 2016 asking for a
laundry porter job, which paid the same as the library job.
Id. He received a response stating that he was
properly placed as unassigned. Id. Plaintiff
specifically asked Bickers why he had been unassigned from
the library job on May 6, 2016 and Bickers responded that
Plaintiff was a troublemaker who liked to file grievances and
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 1 count. 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.
Count 1 - Rains, Bickers, and Erickson
retaliated against Plaintiff for filing grievances by
removing him from his law library job in violation of the
succeed on a First Amendment Retaliation claim, a plaintiff
must prove: 1) that he engaged in conduct protected by the
First Amendment; 2) that he suffered a deprivation that would
likely deter First Amendment activity in the future; and 3)
that the protected conduct was a “motivating
factor” for taking the retaliatory action. Bridges
v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009). In the
prison context, where an inmate is alleging retaliation, the
inmate must identify the reasons that retaliation has been
taken, as well as “the act or acts claimed to have
constituted retaliation, ” so as to put those charged
with the retaliation on notice of the ...