United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Gilbert District Judge
Shaun Kidd, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at the
United States Penitentiary located in Marion, Illinois
(“USP-Marion”), brings this action against the
Federal Bureau of Prisons pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, 2671-80. Plaintiff filed a
“Bill of Complaint for Eighth Amendment Violations,
” in which he complains of unconstitutional conditions
of confinement at USP-Marion. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-6). He seeks
monetary relief against the defendant. (Doc. 1, p. 2).
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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. The Complaint is subject to dismissal
under this standard.
filed a “Bill of Complaint for Eighth Amendment
Violations” against the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, 2671-80. His
“Bill of Complaint” consists of a two-page
document, which indicates that Plaintiff seeks monetary
relief against the BOP under the FTCA. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2).
However, the “Bill of Complaint” sets forth
virtually no coherent factual allegations against the
defendant. Id. Plaintiff instead relies on
statements he made in a “Claim for Damage, Injury, or
Death” that he filed with the BOP on December 28, 2016.
(Doc. 1, pp. 3-6). He attached a copy of the Claim to the
“Bill of Complaint” and incorporated it by
reference therein. Id.
Plaintiff challenges the conditions of his confinement in the
Communications Management Unit (“CMU”) at
USP-Marion. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-6). He complains about an
accumulation of bird “feces, urine, saliva, bird
feathers, etcs [sic], inside the windows, window panes, [and]
screens.” (Doc. 1, p. 3). In the cells, Plaintiff is
exposed to “urine, semen, saliva, blood plasma, sweat,
bird feathers, animal hair, parasites, bacteria, e-coli,
fungi, AIDS/HIV, hepatitis, bacilli-cocci organisms, and
other disease[s].” (Doc. 1, p. 4). He has also observed
mold and notes a “constant odor” in the unit.
unit allegedly has “deplorable ventilation
systems” that cause “deplorable inhalation”
due to “poor air circulation.” (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4).
Plaintiff expresses concern that exposure to these conditions
“can/will exacerbate asthma and many other health
concerns . . . [l]ike throat cancer” for the inmates.
Id. He blames these conditions for making him sick
“three times.” (Doc. 1, p. 6). However, Plaintiff
does not disclose what symptoms or health problems he
experienced. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-6).
only “chemical” that is available to inmates for
cleaning on a daily basis is a “pink solution.”
(Doc. 1, p. 3). On November 8, 2016, inmates were also given
other cleaning supplies, including gloves, dusk masks, a
ladder, and a special key to secure the windows. Id.
Plaintiff and three other inmates received these supplies.
Id. However, the four of them simply could not
address all of the problems. Id. To do so would
require additional manpower, scaffolding, and a hydraulic
system for power washing the area. (Doc. 1, p. 4). ...