United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge
Gregory Conway, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this pro
se action for alleged violations of his constitutional
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Because
Plaintiff brought claims against officials at both Western
Illinois Correctional Center and Pinckneyville Correctional
Center under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,
Plaintiff's case was severed into multiple actions in
this Court's Order (Doc. 11) dated February 2, 2017
Severance Order, Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his
Complaint in this action by March 2, 2017. Id. The
deadline for submitting the amended complaint has since
passed. Id. Remaining in this action are failure to
protect and retaliation claims against Pearce, Estes, Walla,
and Meracle and deliberate indifference claims against Health
Care Administrator John Doe and Richardson. Plaintiff
requests monetary compensation and declaratory relief. (Doc.
1, pp. 30-35).
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
proceed past the threshold stage.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following allegations
related to the remaining Counts in this action. On July 14,
2015, Plaintiff was attacked, punched in the head and face
and stabbed in the neck, chest, back, arm and leg by his
mentally unstable cellmate. (Doc. 1, p. 18). Prior to the
attack, Plaintiff told Defendant Estes that his cellmate
“was constantly threatening to kill” him. (Doc.
1, pp. 16-17, 23). On the day of the attack, he told Estes
that his cellmate had brandished an object that looked like a
knife and told Plaintiff he planned to kill him that day.
Id. Estes mocked Plaintiff, stating “[t]he
Trouble-Maker needs help, write a grievance.” (Doc. 1,
also told Defendant Pearce about his cellmate's threats
and weapon. Before walking away, Pearce stated: “The
big bad trouble-maker is not worried about this little crazy
guy is [sic] you? You should've thought about
that before you started slinging all that ink all over those
grievances.” (Doc. 1, p. 19).
also alleges that he repeatedly told Defendants Walla and
Meracle that his cellmate was suffering from mental illness
and “was constantly threatening to kill the
Plaintiff.” (Doc. 1, p. 21). In response, Walla would
typically say something akin to “we don't help
trouble-makers.” Id. Similarly, Meracle would
call him a trouble-maker and “make an obscene comment
then walk away.” (Doc. 1, p. 22). Plaintiff claims
these actions by Estes, Pearce, Walla and Meracle were taken
in retaliation for Plaintiff having previously complained and
filed grievances and demonstrated deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's personal health and safety. (Doc. 1, pp.
was seen by Richardson after he was attacked and given some
ointment for his stab wounds. (Doc. 1, pp. 23-24, 25-26).
According to the Complaint, Richardson “tried to render
medical services she [wa]s unqualified to give” and
“never followed the procedures required for the
Plaintiff to receive the correct examination and
treatment.” (Doc. 1, pp. 25-26). Plaintiff maintains
that this constitutes deliberate indifference. Id.
was also informed by Richardson that he would be called the
next day to see a doctor. (Doc. 1, p. 26). Despite his
swollen face, blackened and bruised eyes, swollen lip, severe
migraine, body soreness, dizzy spells, “mental and
physical trauma” and “constantly bleeding”
stab wound, Plaintiff was not seen by a doctor as promised.
(Doc. 1, pp. 24, 26). Plaintiff ...