United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ESMOND L. SANFORD, Plaintiff,
LARRIE A. INGLES, BROOKHARDT, RAINES, APRIL RANKIN-WEMPLER, and ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. District Judge
Esmond Sanford, an inmate in Shawnee Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that
occurred at Robinson Correctional Center. Plaintiff requests
injunctive relief and 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
August 2, 2016, Plaintiff was watching TV on his bunk during
the 9:30 pm count. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff had his ID
clipped to the shelf at the foot of the bed, and was sitting
up in the top bunk. Id. Plaintiff alleges that his
face was clearly visible from where he was sitting, and an
officer could have easily seen both his face and ID for the
purpose of conducting the count. Id.
alleges that he and Correctional Officer Ingles had bad blood
between them due to Plaintiff's past grievances on Ingles
and Ingles' past disciplinary reports on Plaintiff.
Id. Ingles conducted the count on August 2.
Id. Plaintiff alleges that Ingles attempted to get
his attention during the count by hitting and shoving him 3
times in the shoulder. Id. Plaintiff asked for a
lieutenant so he could report this assault. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
The lieutenant ordered Plaintiff to cuff up and he was taken
to segregation on investigative status. Id. Ingles
later wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary ticket for 1) dangerous
disturbance; 2) insolence; and 3) disobeying a direct order.
interviewed Plaintiff as part of the investigation on August
4, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Brookhardt told Plaintiff that he
would be transferred because he was alleging an officer
assaulted him. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Warden
Raines, Brookhardt, and Amy Rankin-Wampler, the grievance
officer, all failed to investigate Plaintiff's
allegations in order to cover up the alleged assault. (Doc.
1, pp. 10-11).
time of this incident, Plaintiff was in the Transitions
program, and was going to become a Transition Aide. (Doc. 1,
p. 9). But due to the disciplinary report, Plaintiff was
transferred to a medium security institution, received 1
month C grade, and 1 month segregation. (Doc. 1-2, p. 3).
also filed a Motion to Add the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC) to the Complaint on the grounds that they
hired the warden, and the warden was acting as an employee of
the IDOC at the time of the relevant events. (Doc. 1-1).