United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge
Jamion Martin, an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff seeks fees 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
filed his Complaint on January 25, 2017. (Doc. 1). It appears
that Plaintiff's Complaint may be missing a page. The
Statement of Claim starts with “Count 2.” (Doc.
1, p. 5). Plaintiff has also filed two supplements to the
Complaint (Docs. 7, 11), which normally the Court would not
consider due to its policy of not accepting piecemeal
complaints. The Court will consider them in this case,
however, due to its concern about the potentially missing
page. Nonetheless, Plaintiff is warned that all further
attempts to amend any complaint piecemeal will be denied. Any
amendments should contain all claims currently pending with
new material underlined. See Local Rule 15.1.
grievance attached to the Complaint, as well as
Plaintiff's subsequent filings, make it clear that he
believes that Lashbrook, Love, and other Pinckneyville
administrative staff had an ongoing “illegal”
policy or practice of refusing to submit inmates for their
SSC and GCC good time credit. (Doc. 1-1, p. 7). Plaintiff
believes he was entitled to SSG good time specifically
because he completed a program, and thus was entitled to the
credit as soon as he entered the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”). (Doc. 7, p. 2). Plaintiff
also completed the mental health program, which he believes
entitled him to credits. Id. Plaintiff witnessed six
to eight other inmates receive SSC as soon as they entered
IDOC. Id. Plaintiff was told that he is not eligible
for the credits due to his C-grade status, (Doc. 1-1, p. 7),
but he believes that everyone else at the prison is eligible
but him. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He has alleged that he meets all the
criteria for an award of SSG. (Doc. 11, p. 2). He attributes
his ineligibility to the fact that he filed complaints.
Id. Lashbrook specifically told Plaintiff to stop
“bitching” and “crying” and that he
would get the credits when she was ready. (Doc. 7, p. 5).
Plaintiff included correspondence from Gomez, Warden of
Sheridan Correctional Center, dated September 8, 2016,
telling him to address concerns about SSC with his counselor
and reminding Plaintiff that SSC is discretionary. (Doc. 1-1,
also alleges that Counselor Clay, the unknown grievance
officer, Lashbrook, Baldwin, Doe, and Love violated
Plaintiff's rights by refusing to provide grievances to
inmates. (Doc. 1, p. 5). For example, Plaintiff recently
requested two grievance forms from Clay, but Clay said
“unless you tell me who you're writing up, and what
for, I'm not giving you shit.” Id.
Plaintiff then wrote a grievance on regular paper, but it was
rejected. Id. His oral complaints were ignored, and
four subsequent requests for grievance forms went unanswered.
Id. As a result of the defendants' actions,
Plaintiff has suffered from severe headaches and other mental
indicated in his Complaint that he filed a grievance
regarding these issues on December 26, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
The Complaint does not mention or address any other
grievances. Id. Plaintiff attached a grievance,
which is dated December 26, 2016, to his Complaint. (Doc.
1-1, pp. 7-8). The grievance has a counselor's response
dated January 4, 2017. (Doc. 1-1, p. 7). No other responses
were included. On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed his
“Motion in Addendum.” (Doc. 11). That motion
affirmatively states that “Plaintiff just received a
grievance back from Defendant Baldwin's Office.”
(Doc. 11, p. 1). Plaintiff again attaches a copy of the
December 26 grievance, this time with a stamp noting that it