United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TIMOTHY J. CUNNINGHAM, SR., Plaintiff,
JOHN DOES 1-12 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.
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, 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). 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).
Court initially reviewed this case on February 7, 2017, at
which time it severed many of the claims into separate
lawsuits because they involved different conduct and
defendants. (Doc. 10). The Court will now review the
remaining 3 claims in this lawsuit. Upon 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 dismissal.
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
severance Order left 3 claims in this case:
Count 1 - John Does 1-6 violated Plaintiff's due process
rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when they
lost 48 items of Plaintiff's property after packing it up
between June 8, 2014 and ...