United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
currently incarcerated at Graham Correctional Center
(“Graham”), has brought this pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
raises claims of failure to protect and deliberate
indifference to medical needs, based on incidents that
occurred while he was detained at the Madison County Jail.
The complaint is now before the Court for a preliminary
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
§ 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss any portion
of the complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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 “no
reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.”
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. 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 Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751
(7th Cir. 2011); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
these standards, the Court finds that some of Plaintiff's
claims survive threshold review under § 1915A.
states that on or about February 16, 2016, he told Lt. Hill
and Deputy LeMarr that another inmate (Cole) had threatened
him. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Plaintiff asked to be moved away from
Cole for his own safety. Hill and LeMarr responded that
Plaintiff would “have to work it out, ” and
Plaintiff was not moved. Id.
February 23, 2016, at 9:40pm, Cole attacked Plaintiff. He
placed Plaintiff in a choke hold and ran his head into a
metal bar. Plaintiff suffered a deep, 3-inch-long cut on his
skull. Deputy LeMarr initially gave Plaintiff no medical
assistance, and left to finish his rounds. He later returned
with Lt. Hill and Deputy Tassone. Plaintiff asked to be moved
away from the other inmates, and reported that Cole had
took Plaintiff to the infirmary. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff
asserts that Tassone knew that the “gash” in
Plaintiff's head required stitches, but failed to take
him to the hospital. Id. Instead, somebody put
butterfly bandages on the wound and told him to
asserts three claims based on these facts: Failure to
protect; failure to provide medical treatment; and forcing
him to sleep on the floor with a head injury after the
attack. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He seeks monetary damages.
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into
the following counts. 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. The
designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as
to their merit. Any other claim that is mentioned in the
Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be
considered dismissed without prejudice.
Count 1: Claim against Hill and LeMarr for failing to protect
Plaintiff from the attack by inmate Cole;
Count 2: Claim against LeMarr, Hill, and Tassone for failing
to obtain prompt medical treatment for ...