United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
LIONEL R. BEARD, #11819-040, Plaintiff,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ASSISTANT MANAGER HUMPHRIES, and FRED FALMIER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert District Judge
matter is now before the Court for consideration of the First
Amended Complaint (Docs. 12, 12-1) filed by Plaintiff Lionel
Beard, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois
(FCI-Greenville). Plaintiff claims that he was verbally and
physically assaulted by a UNICOR factory supervisor (Fred
Falmier) at the United States Penitentiary in Marion,
Illinois (USP-Marion), on August 11, 2015. (Doc. 12-1). An
assistant manager (Humphries) who was present during the
incident did not intervene or otherwise attempt to stop the
assault. (Doc. 12-1, pp. 3-4). When Plaintiff filed a formal
complaint, he was transferred to USP-Marion's Special
Housing Unit (SHU), where he remained for at least five
months while the matter was investigated. (Doc. 12-1, p. 4).
Before he was ever interviewed, Plaintiff was transferred to
FCI-Greenville. Id. He now seeks monetary relief for
the negligence and/or deliberate indifference of these
federal officials under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80.
(Doc. 12-1, p. 7).
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
First Amended 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 are to be liberally
construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009). The First
Amended Complaint survives screening under this standard.
his incarceration at USP-Marion, Plaintiff claims that he was
verbally and physically assaulted while working for UNICOR, a
government corporation within the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) that offers industrial work programs and
training opportunities for federal prisoners. (Doc. 12-1). On
August 11, 2015, the employee supervisor, Fred Falmier, used
racial slurs while “violently shoving” Plaintiff.
(Doc. 12-1, p. 3). He suffered bruising as a result of the
incident. (Doc. 12-1, pp. 3-4).
Manager Humphries “witnessed the exchange.” (Doc.
12-1, p. 4). However, Humphries did not intervene to stop the
assault or assist Plaintiff in filing a complaint against
Falmier. Id. Plaintiff asked Humphries to review
video footage of the incident, but it is not clear whether
Humphries did so. Id.
Plaintiff filed a formal complaint on his own, he was
transferred into USP-Marion's SHU on August 13, 2015.
(Doc. 12-1, p. 4). He remained there while the matter was
under investigation. Id. On September 24, 2015, a
Special Investigative Supervisor, named Lieutenant Malcolm,
informed Plaintiff that the institutional level investigation
was complete, and the matter had been referred to the Office
of Inspector General. Id. After five months,
Lieutenant Malcolm informed Plaintiff that the case was
referred back to the institutional level for review.
Id. Plaintiff repeatedly asked when he would be
interviewed, but he never was. Id. Eventually,
Plaintiff was transferred to FCI-Greenville “for his
own protection.” Id. He now claims that prison
officials failed to protect him from a substantial risk of
serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment and
breached the duty of care they owed to him under Illinois
negligence law. (Doc. 12-1, p. 5).
facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in
this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court has
re-organized the claims in ...