United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
BRUCE J. TEAGUE, # K-88876, Plaintiff,
FOOD SUPERVISOR JOHNSON, WARDEN J. LASHBROOK, and UNKNOWN PARTIES, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Herndon Judge.
matter is now before the Court for consideration of the
Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) filed by plaintiff Bruce
Teague on February 22, 2017. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff claims that
officials at Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”) served him spoiled chicken on
October 14, 2016. (Doc. 13, p. 5). As a result, he suffered
from food poisoning. Id. Plaintiff now brings a
claim of negligence against these officials. Id. He
invokes the Fourth and Eighth Amendments in support of this
claim. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. (Doc.
13, p. 6).
Fourth Amended Complaint is subject to screening under 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. 2009). The Fourth Amended Complaint does not
survive screening under this standard and shall be dismissed.
alleges that he was served spoiled pulled chicken for dinner
at Pinckneyville on October 14, 2016. (Doc. 13, p. 5). He
smelled a foul odor emanating from his food tray and
immediately reported it to an unknown lieutenant who worked
in dietary. Id. The lieutenant said that nothing was
wrong with his food. Id. Plaintiff then reported the
issue to the kitchen supervisor, who also said that nothing
was wrong with the food. Id.
proceeded to eat the food. (Doc. 13, p. 5). Shortly after
doing so, he began experiencing stomach pain and extreme body
pain. Id. He became ill and began vomiting.
Id. He lost bowel control. Id.
was diagnosed with salmonella. (Doc. 13, p. 5). He remained
sick for a “couple weeks.” Id. During
this time, he describes tremendous pain, and he was
“afraid to eat.” Id. However, plaintiff
does not claim that he missed any meals or was denied
appropriate medical care for his condition. Id.
blames the entire incident on the negligence of the kitchen
lieutenant and dietary staff. (Doc. 13, p. 5). He asserts
that these individuals are supposed to make sure that inmate
food is safe to eat. Id. By failing to do so, they