United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MATTEL MCCURRY, No. M- 10261, Plaintiff,
S. DUNCAN, WARDEN GOINES, C/O CAYE-WOOD, C/O HITCHCOX, C/O RONIN, C/O SAUNDERS, LT. OCHS, LT. WHEELER, SGT. HARPER, SGT. CASBURN, HOUGH, LT. CARRIE, C/O COOPER, COUNSELER KITTIE, and COUNSELER RAY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN Chief District Judge.
Mattel McCurry, presently an inmate in Menard Correctional
Center (“Menard”), brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Prior to being incarcerated at Menard,
Plaintiff was incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center
(“Lawrence”). Plaintiff generally alleges that,
while incarcerated at Lawrence, Lawrence officials
intentionally exposed Plaintiff's underlying criminal
convictions,  placing Plaintiff's life in danger. In
connection with these claims, Plaintiff sues numerous
Lawrence officials. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief.
Additionally, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form
of an order directing officials at Lawrence to place
Plaintiff in protective custody and to strictly sanction the
officials that violated his constitutional rights.
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.
alleges that Lawrence officials intentionally informed other
inmates and prison staff that Plaintiff's underlying
convictions involved sexual assault and domestic abuse,
knowing that convictions of this nature are
“unacceptable” and “despised” by
inmates and prison staff. (Doc. 1, pp. 3, 12). Plaintiff
contends that, as a result, he has been threatened by other
inmates and mistreated by prison staff. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-11).
Plaintiff further alleges that an “individual
defendant” ordered another inmate to physically assault
Plaintiff because of his underlying convictions and that this
inmate carried out the assault “to the best of his
ability.” (Doc. 1, p. 4). In addition, Plaintiff
contends he has been assaulted by inmates and threatened by
Lawrence staff on “numerous occasions.” (Doc. 1,
p. 7). According to Plaintiff, he has submitted emergency
grievances seeking protective custody and/or a transfer out
of Lawrence, but his requests have been ignored. (Doc. 1, pp.
allegations described above might be sufficient to state a
claim for relief if they were directed at a specific
defendant and described the alleged wrongful conduct with
more specificity. In the instant case, however, a majority of
Plaintiff's claims are not directed at any particular
defendant. Instead, Plaintiff brings allegations as to
generic individuals or groups of individuals, including
“the individual defendant”, “the
“officials”, a “c/o” (more than one
“c/o” has been named as a Defendant), and a
“Sgt.” (more than one “Sgt.” Has been
named as a Defendant). (See e.g. Doc. 1, pp. 3-4, 7,
12). In addition, the Complaint includes very little
specificity regarding the alleged threats and assaults. After
reviewing the Complaint, the Court notes the following
allegations as to specific defendants:
February 2, 2016, Caye-Wood began to tell other inmates about
Plaintiff's underlying convictions. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
Subsequently, other inmates began to threaten Plaintiff and
have extorted money out of the Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
filed numerous emergency grievances with Goines. (Doc. 1, p.
4). The ...