United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TIMOTHY J. CUNNINGHAM SR., Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.
Timothy J. Cunningham, Sr., an inmate in Lawrence
Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of
his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff requests monetary damages.
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
originally brought this claim in case No. 16-cv-1360-MJR on
December 19, 2016. (Doc. 1). On February 8, 2017, the Court
severed this claim from that action as unrelated. (Doc. 1).
alleges that on September 15, 18, and 21, 2016, Officer
Snearly cut short the time to eat on the diabetic chow line.
(Doc. 2, p. 16). Exhibits attached to the Complaint allege
that on September 15, the last man in the chow line sat down
at 4:43 pm, and that Snearly called out the inmates at 4:48
pm, forcing Plaintiff to throw away the rest of his meal.
(Doc. 2-11, p. 3). On September 18, the last man sat down at
4:48 pm, and Snearly told the inmates to exit the chow
facility at 4:51 pm. (Doc. 2-11, p. 5). On September 21,
2016, Snearly entered the chow dining area and told the
assembled inmates that he usually gives inmates twelve
minutes to eat, and that they had been eating for fifteen
minutes, three minutes longer than usual. (Doc. 2, p. 16).
The grievance Plaintiff wrote on this incident suggests that
the last inmate sat down sometime between 4:44 pm and 4:47
pm, and that the inmates were told to get up at 4:50 pm.
(Doc. 2-11, p. 8). Snearly told the inmates to get out
because they had been eating too long. (Doc. 2, p. 16).
Snearly was serving as the walk officer, who is in charge of
moving inmates from building to building. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Snearly is not supposed to control how
long the inmates have to eat. Id. Plaintiff further
alleges that Snearly violated Rule 11 of the inmate
orientation manual, which states that inmates will be allowed
ten minutes to eat from the time the last man sits down.
Id. As a result of Snearly's actions, Plaintiff
was forced to throw away food. Id. Plaintiff is a
diabetic. Id. If Plaintiff has to eat commissary
food instead of chow hall food, it puts him at risk because
he could potentially eat too much sugar. Id.
the Court found that Plaintiff had alleged one ...