United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TIMOTHY S. LACK, Plaintiff,
JOEL C. BROMAGHIM, MICHAEL BEABER, BRIAN BRENNER, STEPHEN JANUARY, and STEVEN BOSAW, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge.
Timothy Lack, a former inmate of Danville Correctional Center
now on parole, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In
his Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), Plaintiff claims he was
subjected to excessive force during his arrest. This case is
now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Amended
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 Amended Complaint and any supporting
exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to allow this action
to proceed past the threshold stage.
Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: on April 21, 2016, officers Bromaghim, Beaber,
Brenner, January, and Bosaw from the Alton Police Department
came to Plaintiff's home with a warrant for
Plaintiff's arrest. (Doc. 9, pp. 6, 8). When they
arrived, they kicked Plaintiff's door in without warning
after knocking two to three times. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff
was seated with his hands up when they entered. Id.
At this time, the defendants released a K-9 dog that attacked
Plaintiff while he was sitting. Id. Specifically,
the dog bit Plaintiff's left outer calf and left inner
thigh close to his privates and attached to him. Id.
Plaintiff has many scars from the attack. Id.
Plaintiff was then tazed in the chest. Id. After
that, several officers struck Plaintiff in the face, head,
neck, and back and kicked him, stomping on his left elbow,
right hand, and left ankle. Id. At one point, given
the level of violence inflicted on Plaintiff, Plaintiff lost
consciousness briefly. Id.
had no guns or drugs to explain the level of force that was
used, nor did he try to run from or fight the officers.
Id. Plaintiff still suffers from left eye issues as
well as bad pain in his left elbow and hand. (Doc. 9, p. 7).
His right collar bone area and neck have also been in pain.
Id. Plaintiff believes defendants cracked numerous
bones in the alleged altercation. Id. Plaintiff has
experienced numbness in his upper legs from his knees to his
hips and in his lower back, along with pain. Id.
Plaintiff has also had black out spells, dizziness,
headaches, and “lazy eye feelings.” Id.
These effects were particularly bad from the date of the
incident until the end of June, but Plaintiff claims he still
has issues with his legs, back, eye, elbow, hand, neck, and
collar bone. Id. Plaintiff received care at Alton
Memorial Hospital, but Plaintiff does not believe his
injuries were fully resolved. Id.
on the allegations of the Amended Complaint, the Court finds
it convenient to designate a single count in this action. The
parties and the Court will use this designation in all future
pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial
officer of this Court.
Count 1 - On April 21, 2016, defendants
violated the Fourth Amendment when they used and/or failed to
intervene to prevent excessive force used against Plaintiff
when a K-9 unit was released to subdue him, he was tazed, and