United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
SCOTT A. MEDFORD, Plaintiff,
UNKNOWN PARTY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Medford v. McLaurin, Case No. 17-cv-243-JPG (S.D.
Ill. Sept. 20, 2017) (“Original Action”),
Plaintiff Scott Medford, an inmate in Menard Correctional
Center (“Menard”), brought suit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional
rights that allegedly occurred at St. Clair County Jail.
Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.
2007), a deliberate indifference claim pertaining to a
correctional officer's alleged lack of knowledge in life
preservation techniques was severed from that initial action
to form the basis for this action, Case No. 17-cv-1016-JPG.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of that
claim 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.
fully considering the relevant allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court concludes that this action is subject to
allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) relevant to
this severed action are as follows: C.O. Lazante is not
“educated on how to preserve life.” (Doc. 2, p.
8). An inmate had a seizure, and Lazante left him on his back
while he was seizing. Id. Another inmate tended to
the seizing inmate in order to prevent him from choking.
Severance Order (Doc. 1), the Court designated the following
count to be severed into this pro se action. The
parties and the Court will continue to use this designation
in all future pleadings and ...