United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Gilbert U.S. District Judge.
Calvin Robinson, an inmate in Graham Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that
occurred at St. Clair County Jail. Plaintiff seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and fees and costs. This 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.
was detained in St. Clair County jail stating around July
2013. (Doc. 1, p. 5). While there, Plaintiff endured
unsanitary and unhealthy living conditions such being made to
sleep on a filthy floor, overcrowding, unsanitary showers and
toilets, insect and mice infestations, and a lack of cleaning
materials. Id. Plaintiff sent offender requests to
each of the named Defendants regarding the harsh living
conditions, and followed up with them personally, but his
requests went ignored. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). As a result of the
unsanitary conditions, Plaintiff developed scabies, skin
rashes, migraine headaches, and nausea. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Illinois Department of Corrections records show that
Plaintiff entered IDOC custody on February 25, 2014. Offender
(last accessed June 2, 2017).
it appears that Plaintiff has adequately alleged a claim
based on unconstitutional conditions of confinement under the
Eighth Amendment, the Court will not address the merits of
that claim further because it is clear from the face of the
Complaint that this cause of action is barred by the statute
typically affirmative defenses such filing after the statute
of limitations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies
are litigated by the parties after service, see Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212 (2007), a Court may invoke these
defenses on § 1915A review when the availability of the
defense is apparent on the face of the Complaint. Walker
v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009 (7th Cir. 2002);
Brownlee v. Conine, 957 F.2d 353, 354 (7th Cir.
1983 does not contain a statute of limitations. Malone v.
Corr. Corp. of Am., 553 F.3d 540, 542 (7th Cir. 2009).
Federal courts use the periods of limitations adopted by the
states for personal-injury suits. Id. (citing
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985)). In Illinois,
therefore, the limitations period for § 1983 cases is 2
years. Johnson v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519, 521 (7th
Cir. 2001) (citing Kalimara v. Ill. Dep't of
Corr., 879 F.2d 276, 277 (7th Cir. 1989)). Accord
Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 623 (7th Cir.
Plaintiff filed suit on February 23, 2017. (Doc. 1). His
Complaint alleges that his claim began accruing in July 2013,
more than 3 years ago. Even assuming that Plaintiff's
claim counts as a continuing violation based on the nature of
the allegations, the last day that the claim could have
accrued would have been the last day that Plaintiff remained
in Defendants' custody, which was February 24, 2014.
Heard v. Sheahan¸253 F.3d 316, 318 (7th Cir.
2001) (finding that cruel and unusual punishment can be said
to continue “for so long as defendants had the power to
do something about [the plaintiff's] condition, which is
to say ...