United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge
Maurecus Adams, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that allegedly
occurred at Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff requests
declarative relief, a pardon,  compensatory damages, punitive
damages, and costs. 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. 2009).
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary
brought suit on July 7, 2017. (Doc. 1). The suit originally
included allegations arising out of Plaintiff's time at
Menard, Stateville, and Lawrence Correctional Centers, but on
August 25, 2017 the Court severed the claims arising out of
conduct at Stateville and Lawrence pursuant to George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007). (Doc. 7). This case
proceeds as to Plaintiff's claims arising out of his time
at Menard Correctional Center alone.
February 5, 2014, while at Menard, C/O Petterson agreed to
whip Plaintiff at the request of other inmates who believed
Plaintiff was a snitch. (Doc. 1, p. 7). That same day, Wills
gave orders to kill Plaintiff because he said Plaintiff
talked too much. Id. Nurse Stefun agreed to use Drug
S6K and HIV in order to kill Plaintiff; Stefun had allegedly
discovered that Drug S6K, when combined with HIV, will cause
an allergic reaction resulting in death. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
Nurse Rayburs also agreed to issue a report on
Plaintiff's death. Id. Nurse Hopkins agreed to
report Plaintiff's murder as a suicide. Id.
Plaintiff also believes that “rape was also a weapon to
maybe be used to give me HIV, ” although the Complaint
never states he was actually raped. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). Lt.
Hughes then came and took Plaintiff to segregation in
violation of his 8th Amendment Rights. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9).
attached to the Complaint indicate that Plaintiff engaged in
self-harming behavior on February 5, 2014, and was placed on
crisis watch. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 14-16).
Suneja came to Plaintiff's cell on February 10, 2014 to
check on the effects of the drug. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff
complained to him, but nothing was done. Id.
Plaintiff also complained to Suneja on February 18, 2014,
March 23, 2014 and July 28, 2014. Id. Plaintiff
alleges that Nurse Jane Doe then came to his cell and poked
him twice with a small syringe through the bars. (Doc. 1, p.
9). Zang was the gallery officer at this time. Id.
The porter also gave Plaintiff a juice box containing urine.
Id. Lt. Bradley, Spiller, Whitthoft, and Heckinger
observed the effect of the drug on Plaintiff and forced him
out of his cell using the extraction team to see the nurse.
(Doc. 1, pp. 9-10). The Menard Orange Crush team maced and
extracted Plaintiff from his cell; Plaintiff alleges he
refused the order to cuff up out of fear. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
The Menard Orange Crush team also took the juice container
full of urine. Id. Plaintiff was given another juice
container by Wilson that contained an electronic transmitter.
Id. Plaintiff felt the transmitter get caught
between his throat and his chest. Id. Plaintiff
spoke to several officers about the transmitter but they
failed to document it. Id. Richard Harrington was
the Warden of Menard during both the February 5th and 10th
incidents. (Doc. 1, p. 11).
28, 2014, Odisa transported Plaintiff from a squad car, which
he had been in due to a court writ, to segregation. (Doc. 1,
p. 10). Odisa verbally threatened Plaintiff, telling him that
he should only ask for help if he didn't remember what
happened the last time. (Doc. 1, pp. 10-11).
April 8, 2015, Lee “called [Plaintiff] out”
regarding the grievance he wrote on March 6, 2015 regarding
being poisoned. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Plaintiff alleges this
violated his 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights.
wrote a letter and a grievance that Butler failed to respond
to between June 25, 2014 and March 6, 2015. Id.
Plaintiff left Menard on May 21, 2015. (Doc. 1-1, p. 8).
Order severing this case found that 7 of Plaintiff's
claims arose out of his time at Menard ...