United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. HERNDON JUDGE.
Christopher Croom brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
allegedly occurred in Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff
seeks declarative relief and monetary damages. 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.
Plaintiff filed this case, the Court determined that
Plaintiff had attempted to proceed on unrelated claims in the
same lawsuit. (Doc. 4). The Court dismissed some defendants
and severed some claims into separate lawsuits. (Doc. 4).
Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration, which
the Court will take up with this review because it addresses
the propriety of dismissing those defendants. (Doc. 5). Upon
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this action will be dismissed without
prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint. The Court
also DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (Doc.
pertinent to this claim, Plaintiff alleges that he was sent
to segregation at Menard Correctional Center on February 13,
2017. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff's cell was filthy and his
mattress was urine-stained, but Plaintiff only received
“some type of watered-down liquid” once a week to
clean it. Id. Plaintiff received the same amount
cleaning supplies in segregation as he did in general
population. Id. Plaintiff was also deprived of
personal hygiene items, like toothpaste, a toothbrush, soap,
deodorant, and a change of clothes for 10 days, until he
received his personal property. Id. Plaintiff asked
a C/O for hygiene products, but the C/O responded “ask
your homeboys” and “don't come to seg.”
Id. Plaintiff was not permitted to shower for 18
was assigned to a two-man cell with 36 square feet of space.
Id. There is no room to exercise in those cells.
order dividing Plaintiff's claims into separate cases
designated 1 claim for this case:
Count 1 - Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to be free
from cruel and unusual punishment was violated when he was
confined to a 36 square foot cell, on a filthy pee-soaked
mattress and deprived of cleaning supplies, hygiene ...