United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.
Gregory Conway, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) housed in Pinckneyville
Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of
his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The claims in this lawsuit were severed from another matter
on February 3, 2017. (Doc. 1). The claims then underwent
threshold screening on March 7, 2017. (Doc. 6). The Court
found that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted and dismissed the Complaint with
leave to amend. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on March 31, 2017. (Doc. 8).
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Amended Complaint 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 Amended Complaint and any supporting
exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its
authority under § 1915A; this action is once again
subject to summary dismissal.
was transferred to Pinckneyville Correctional Center on May
21, 2015. (Doc. 8, p. 5). Lieutenant Gooden told William
Johnson that Plaintiff was a troublemaker and that
Pinckneyville should show Plaintiff “how we deal with
troublemakers.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that
Gooden made that remark because Plaintiff had reported a
sexual assault at Western Correctional Center, where Gooden
was employed. Id. Johnson turned to Plaintiff and
said, “So you're a troublemaker, we got a way of
dealing with trouble makers in Pinckneyville.”
Id. Plaintiff was then written a disciplinary report
for talking on the bus, which he alleges was fabricated in
was served the disciplinary report written by Williams on May
22, 2015. Id. Although the original Complaint
alleged that Plaintiff filled out the bottom portion
requesting witnesses and gave it to a Corrections Officer
(“C/O”) (Doc. 2, pp. 12-13), Plaintiff now
alleges that he merely called after the C/O who dropped the
form off and that the C/O ignored him. (Doc. 8, p. 5).
had his Adjustment Committee hearing on May 24, 2015.
Id. Heck and Myers presided over the hearing.
Id. Plaintiff informed them he wished to call
witnesses, but they told him it was too late for that.
Id. Plaintiff began arguing about the witnesses, but
Heck cut him off, saying, “They're right, you are a
troublemaker . . . guilty as charged, now get out of
was placed in segregation, where he was not allowed to make
phone calls to family members, watch television, eat food he
had purchased from the commissary, or take college classes,
all of which are privileges afforded to inmates in general