United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge
James Harrington, a former inmate of Lawrence Correctional
Center currently on parole, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 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 allow this action to
makes the following allegations (Doc. 1): On June 10, 2015,
Plaintiff was prevented from getting a meal by Defendants
Feldhake and Workman. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). Plaintiff filed a
grievance about the incident. (Doc. 1, p. 7). A few days
later, Defendant Moss came to Plaintiff's living unit to
discuss what happened. Id. Plaintiff informed Moss
that he was denied food and Moss told him that he would take
care of the problem. Id. The following day, Workman
and Feldhake forced Plaintiff to sit alone at a table for
troubled inmates and “verbally assault[ed]”
Plaintiff, calling him a “snitch bitch” and
stating that “it was not over.” Id. This
continued for the next 4 days or so. Id.
15, 2015, Plaintiff was forced to dump his food in the trash
by Workman, who then took him to Major Kinney's office.
Feldhake and Workman told Kinney that Plaintiff was a
“Snitch Bitch” who had “cried to Warden
Moss about what they were doing to” him. (Doc. 1, p.
8). Plaintiff denied Feldhake and Workman's claims that
he was “a big problem, ” but Kinney told him he
would be dealt with once “chow” had ended.
Id. Plaintiff remained in Kinney's office, and
once “chow” ended, he was violently assaulted,
choked and battered by Workman and Feldhake. Id.
Plaintiff was punched several times in the face and the back
of his head and was choked to the verge of passing out, all
while he was handcuffed. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Feldhake then
demanded that Plaintiff strike him, but he refused.
Id. Feldhake told Plaintiff to “never again go
and snitch to the warden.” Id.
was put in segregation for 30 days and given an Inmate
Disciplinary Report, allegedly to cover up Feldhake and
Workman's assault of him. (Doc. 1, p. 8). He was taken to
the Health Care Unit on June 17, 2015 to be treated for his
injuries from the attack, including his
“‘choking' injury.” (Doc. 1, p. 9).
Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding the assault on June 16,
2015. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 4 counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, ...