United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Herndon United States District Judge.
Malcolm Wiggins, an inmate in Illinois River Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
occurred at Shawnee Correctional Center. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive
relief. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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; portions of this action are subject to
August 8, 2016, while at Shawnee Correctional Center,
Plaintiff's cell was shaken down by the Orange Crush
tactical team. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Dennison ordered the shakedown
after a gang fight. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff claims he had
nothing to do with the gang fight, and that the gang members
had already been taken to segregation. Id. Plaintiff
concludes that Dennison's purpose in ordering the
shakedown was to hurt, harm, scare, and retaliate against
was housed in cell #34, 1 House, D-wing. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Plaintiff alleges that he was specifically targeted because
he was known to file grievances. (Doc. 1, p. 9). As a result
of the shakedown, Plaintiff's cell was trashed, food and
soap were poured on his clothes and legal work, and $92.27
worth of personal property was taken and destroyed by an
unknown Orange Crush Member. Id.
Doe and an unknown Orange Crush Member stripped searched
Plaintiff and then cuffed him. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff
alleges that Doe had Plaintiff turn his palms out and his
thumbs up prior to placing the handcuffs on Plaintiff.
Id. Plaintiff alleges that this is a stressful
position that causes twisting in the shoulders and pain.
Id. Additionally, Plaintiff was forced to hold his
head to his chest for over 2 hours. Id. Plaintiff
alleges that Doe, Unknown Orange Crush Member, Yurkovich, and
others were put on notice about the nature of this position
by prior lawsuits, grievances, and complaints. Id.
immediately felt pain after being cuffed. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He
asked Doe to loosen the cuffs, but Doe refused. Id.
As a result of the too-tight handcuffs, Plaintiff experienced
hand numbness, swelling, shoulder pain, and a lump on his
collarbone and A.C. joint. Id.
the strip search, Plaintiff was forced to touch his genitals
and then spread his buttocks. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He was then
instructed to put his fingers in his mouth without being able
to wash his hands prior. Id. Plaintiff specifically
asked if he could wash his hands, but Doe and the Unknown
Orange Crush Member threatened to beat Plaintiff.
Id. Plaintiff was then forced to walk to the inmate
dining room in a “nuts to butts” position.
Id. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered emotional
distress, anxiety, and other psychological injuries as a
result of these actions. Id.
alleges that Warden Jeffery Dennison and Joseph Yurkovich
turned a blind eye to the conduct. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
Specifically, he alleges that there is a practice in the IDOC
to conduct shakedowns in this manner, and that Yurkovich has
overseen this practice. Id. Plaintiff alleges that
Yurkovich encouraged this conduct and also failed to punish
past incidents of similar misconduct. Id.
alleges that he saw Dr. Apostle on August 24, 2016, and Dr.
Alfonso David and Tammy Pittayathihan on September 26, 2016
in reference to the injuries he received during the
shakedown. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Plaintiff alleges that defendants
failed to schedule a timely medical examination and/or
treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 11). They have refused to give
Plaintiff an MRI or send him to an orthopedist. (Doc. 1, p.
12). This refusal has left Plaintiff in severe pain, limited
his range of motion, and caused emotional distress. (Doc. 1,
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 7 counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. The following claims survive
Count 1 - John Doe used excessive force on Plaintiff when he
cuffed his hands too tightly, causing injury in violation ...