United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge.
DeAndre Strong, an inmate in Centralia Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that
occurred at Vienna Correctional Center. Plaintiff requests
punitive damages as well as costs and fees. 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.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A. This action is subject to summary
September 30, 2016 at 10:30 pm, Plaintiff was in his assigned
cell talking and joking with his cellmate when inmate Shawn
Bowens came into his cell and attacked him. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Bowens hit and kneed Plaintiff in the face. Id. He
then told Plaintiff's roommate to get out and told
Plaintiff that he'd be right back. Id. After
they both left, Plaintiff locked the door to his cell.
Id. Bowens came back and demanded that Plaintiff
open the door and Plaintiff refused. Id.
shift changed at approximately 11:00 pm. Id. At 4:30
am, Plaintiff reported the assault to the female correctional
officer. Id. Plaintiff was placed on investigative
status and sent to the health care unit for his injuries.
Id. Bowens was eventually found guilty of the
assault and transferred to Shawnee Correctional Center. (Doc.
1, p. 10).
alleges that Defendant Reed was the officer on duty at the
time of the assault, and that Reed failed to do his assigned
walk through. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He further alleges that if Reed
had done the check as he was supposed to, he could have
prevented the attack on Plaintiff or intervened to stop it.
(Doc. 1, p. 6).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 1 count. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, ...