United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Honorable Staci M. Yandle United States District Judge.
matter is now before the Court for consideration of the First
Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Michael McIntosh, an
inmate who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional
Center (“Menard”). Plaintiff brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that officials at Menard failed to protect him from a known
risk of assault by his cellmate. Plaintiff also alleges that
related grievances were ignored or delayed on the basis of
his race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In
connection with these claims, Plaintiff sues C. Lindsey
(corrections officer), Sergeant Heiman (corrections officer)
and G. Price (grievance counselor). Each defendant is sued in
his or her individual and official capacities. Plaintiff
seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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.
February 22, 2016 through March 30, 2016, Plaintiff and his
cellmate “Damico, ” (No. K-60832) were confined
in the East Cell House, on gallery 5, in cell number 19.
(Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). Damico had a history of violently
assaulting his cellmates by biting them and Lindsey and
Heiman were aware of this history. (Doc. 1, p. 7). On six
different occasions during that time period, Plaintiff
notified Lindsey and Heiman that he and Damico “were
not getting along, that he was afraid, that he wanted
protection, that his cellmate threatened to harm him and that
he wanted to be moved.” Id. On each occasion,
Lindsey and Heiman indicated the situation was “out of
their hands” and refused to transfer either inmate to a
new cell. Id.
March 30, 2016, Plaintiff's cellmate began cussing at him
and struck him in the jaw with his fist. Id. As
Plaintiff was struggling to protect himself, his cellmate bit
half of Plaintiff's left thumb completely off.
Id. Plaintiff received medical treatment from Barnes
Jewish Hospital and was returned to Menard. Id. Upon
returning to Menard, Plaintiff was placed on segregation and
investigative status and eventually received a disciplinary
report for fighting. Id.
filed a formal grievance regarding the matters described
above on April 20, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 7; Doc. 1-1, p. 6). On
April 25, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an informal letter to the
Administrative Review Board inquiring about the April 20,
2016 grievance and attaching a copy of the same. (Doc. 1, p.
7; Doc. 1-1, pp. 8-10). Plaintiff submitted the informal
letter because officials at Menard have a tendency to ignore
internal grievance procedures. Id. On June 7, 2016,
Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant Price stating that
she had not received any grievances from Plaintiff. (Doc. 1,
p. 7; Doc. 1-1, p. 17). On June 27, 2016, the April 20, 2016
grievance was denied as untimely. (Doc. 1, p. 7; Doc. 1-1,
contends that Price mishandled his grievance in violation of
Administrative Directive 504(f). (Doc. 1, p. 9).
Additionally, Plaintiff alleges Price mishandled the
grievance on the basis of Plaintiff's race, in violation
of the Equal Protection Clause. Id. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that his grievance was not handled in a
timely manner because he is African American and “white
prisoners receive timely responses to their grievances and
have better outcomes”. Id.
facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in
this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court deems it
appropriate to organize the claim in ...