United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TIMOTHY J. CUNNINGHAM, SR., Plaintiff,
BRIDWELL, DUNLAP, JOHNSON, JENKINS, TANNER, BRUNNER, CARRIE, SIMMS, SANDERS, SHARP, SNEARLY, FALMIER, VAUGHN, JOHN & JANE DOES 1-40, DUNCAN, LAMB, and ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. Chief District Judge
Timothy Cunningham brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
allegedly occurred in Pickneyville Correctional Center and
Lawrence Correctional Center. Plaintiff seeks monetary
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). 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). 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 Rodriguez v. Plymouth
Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this action is severable.
June 8 and June 10, 2014, John Does 1 through 6 packed up
Plaintiff's property from cell R2C32 at Pickneyville.
(Doc. 1, p. 6). When Plaintiff's property was returned to
him, he was missing 48 items. Id. Plaintiff was also
missing trial transcripts and the “common law”
record. Id. He alleges that he was unable to
properly file a habeas corpus petition without these
property was packed up again on September 24, 2014 at
Pickneyville Correctional Center for a transfer to Lawrence
Correctional Center, which occurred on September 25, 2014.
Id. Plaintiff's property arrived at Lawrence on
October 18, 2014. Id. Several items of
Plaintiff's property were broken. Id. Plaintiff
received the bulk of his property at Lawrence on October 31,
2014, and the remainder on December 1, 2014. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Plaintiff holds John Does #7-12 responsible for this chain of
November 8, 2014, Plaintiff handed Sharp an envelope with two
motions to send to the law library. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). On
November 27, 2014, Plaintiff discovered the envelope in the
control center of his building. (Doc. 1, p. 8). It was never
given to the law library. Id.
suffered a heart attack in his cell on October 5, 2014 at
Lawrence. He alleges that John Does 13 through 18, i.e., the
officers on 6 house working that day, ignored the panic
button, and that Plaintiff waited 45 minutes for assistance.
(Doc. 1, pp. 8-9).
was taken to health care after his heart attack, where he
alleges that writing materials and hygiene supplies were
withheld from him for 26 days. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff does
not name the officers who withheld these materials.
alleges that Vaughn withheld communion from him at Lawrence,
substantially burdening his practice ...