United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Herndon United States District Judge.
Lawrence Adamczyk, a sexually dangerous person (SDP) in Big
Muddy Correctional Center, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 based on his confinement as an SDP.
Plaintiff requests declarative relief, immediate release and
monetary damages. SDPs are subject to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 et seq.; See
Kalinwoski v. Bond, 358 F.3d 978, 978-79 (7th Cir.
the Court will conduct 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; portions of this action are subject to
was declared a sexually dangerous person in or about 2014 and
committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections.
(Doc. 7-1, p. 3). He alleges that to secure his commitment,
he was charged with a made-up crime, and the charges were
later dismissed. (Doc. 1-1, p. 1). He denies that he ever
needed treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff alleges that
Baldwin, the Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC), and Dr. Holt, the administrator of the
SDP program at Big Muddy, violated his constitutional rights
because they knew that his confinement without trial was
improper but accepted custody over him anyway. (Doc. 1, p.
5). Plaintiff further alleges that despite the fact that he
is a ward of the state confined for treatment, and not a
convicted felon, he is treated as a prisoner and not given
appropriate care or treatment to ensure his recovery. (Doc.
1, pp. 6-7). Plaintiff also has inadequate clothing and
inadequate access to the courts. (Doc. 1-1, p. 6). He is
subject to inhumane conditions of confinement, including
excessive heat and poor ventilation. Id. He is
forced to come into contact with other state prisoners. (Doc.
1, p. 9).
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, unless otherwise directed by a