United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Christopher Croom brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
allegedly occurred at Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff
seeks declarative relief, monetary damages, and injunctive
relief. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Amended 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.
plaintiff brought this claim in case No. 17-612 on June 9,
2017. (Doc. 1). This claim was deemed severable pursuant to
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) and
this action was opened on June 14, 2017. (Doc. 1). The Court
dismissed the complaint without prejudice on June 19, 2017
for failure to state a claim because plaintiff had not
associated any defendants with his claim. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on June 29, 2017. (Doc. 10).
to the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he sent a
grievance to Counselor Rodely on March 14, 2017 regarding an
enemy of his that is also housed at Menard. (Doc. 10, p. 5).
Plaintiff alleges that Marlon Brown was an enemy of his on
the streets. Id. One day at legal call, plaintiff
saw an inmate housed in West Cell house with Brown.
Id. That inmate told plaintiff that Brown knew
plaintiff was at Menard and would “catch [him] in
traffic.” Id. Plaintiff interprets this as a
statement that Brown will get him when he sees him.
Id. Plaintiff sent a grievance to Rodely and marked
it as an emergency. Id. Plaintiff's
understanding is that emergency grievances are sent directly
to the Warden, so he assumes Warden Lashbrook saw the
grievance. (Doc. 10, p. 6). Plaintiff never received a
response to his grievance from either Rodely or Lashbrook.
has also requested injunctive relief on this claim. (Doc.
11). Specifically, he requests “transfer of Plaintiff
from this institution to be away from a constant threat of
danger from a murderer.” (Doc. 10, p. 8).
Court finds it convenient to construe plaintiff's claim
as one count. The parties and the Court will use this
designation in all future Orders:
Count 1 - Rodely and Lashbrook were deliberately indifferent
to the serious risk of harm posed by plaintiff's enemy,
Marlon Brown, when they failed to respond to his ...