United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
KYLE J. CARCIONE, Plaintiff,
DONALD R. JONES, and CHET SHAFFER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Gilbert United States District Judge
currently incarcerated at the Jackson County Jail, has
brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. His claims arose while he was detained
at the Franklin County Jail. Plaintiff claims that Defendants
violated his rights in numerous ways, including denying him
access to a grievance procedure, placing him in segregation
without due process, and failing to transport him to court
appearances. This case is now before the Court for a
preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss any portion
of the complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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 “no
reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.”
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. Conversely, a complaint is plausible on
its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations
as true, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th
Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or
implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a
plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574,
581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts “should not
accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a
cause of action or conclusory legal statements.”
Id. At the same time, however, the factual
allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally
construed. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751
(7th Cir. 2011); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
these standards, the Court finds that one of Plaintiff's
claims survives threshold review under § 1915A.
states that he has been in custody since October 14, 2015,
during which time he spent at least 10 months in the Franklin
County Jail. (Doc. 1, p. 5). The Complaint indicates that
Plaintiff is being held as a pretrial detainee on charges
pending in Jackson County. He names Franklin County Jail
Administrator Chet Shaffer and Sheriff Donald Jones as
to Plaintiff, Shaffer has impeded and denied his access to
the jail's grievance process on many occasions. Shaffer
is the person who answers grievances, and he has refused to
give Plaintiff copies or allow him to appeal his grievances
outside the facility. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
has interfered in all of Plaintiff's medical treatment by
confiscating Plaintiff's medical requests and
“making his own diagnosis, ” which has prolonged
the process of obtaining treatment or an examination by a
has placed Plaintiff in segregation multiple times, without
giving Plaintiff a disciplinary report or holding a hearing.
and Jones have failed to place detainee rights or rights of
the accused in the jail.
and Shaffer allow unsanitary conditions to persist in the
jail, including black mold in the showers, and rust on the
and Lt. Skobel (who is not a Defendant) have interfered with
Plaintiff's legal mail/material. They have also
confiscated and/or destroyed items, including personal
pictures, in Plaintiff's incoming personal mail, without
documenting what items were confiscated.
deactivated Plaintiff's telephone PIN account for
approximately 7 months, preventing Plaintiff from calling
family, civil attorneys, and his criminal attorney. (Doc. 1,
the 8-10 months prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff
has been issued multiple writs of habeas corpus by the
Jackson County State's Attorney, ordering him to appear
in court in Jackson County. However, Jones and Shaffer have
repeatedly failed to honor the writs and refused to bring
Plaintiff to court on multiple occasions. The most recent of
these incidents was on May 26, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that
their refusal to transport him has prolonged his detention
and impeded his right to a fair legal process. Id.
has been refused legal material, despite his multiple
requests and filing of grievances.
final complaint is that cameras are set up in his cell,
violating his personal privacy.
seeks monetary damages for the violations of his rights.
(Doc. 1, p. 6).
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into the
following 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
designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as
to their merit. Any other claim that is mentioned in the
Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be
considered dismissed without prejudice.
Count 1: Shaffer has denied Plaintiff access
to a grievance process in the jail;
Count 2: Shaffer prevented and/or delayed
Plaintiff's access to medical care;
Count 3: Shaffer punished Plaintiff with
segregation without due process;
Count 4: Shaffer and Jones subjected
Plaintiff to unsanitary conditions in ...