United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Felton Williams, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Big Muddy River Correctional Center (“Big
Muddy”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). According to the Complaint,
Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with another inmate
at Big Muddy on May 18, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He was injured
when several correctional officers intervened and broke up
the fight. Id. Plaintiff claims that the officers
violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Id.
He now sues the prison and three correctional officers for
monetary damages. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2, 6).
case is before the Court for 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 in the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
2009). The Complaint survives screening under this standard.
to the Complaint, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation
with another inmate at Big Muddy on May 18, 2017. (Doc. 1,
pp. 5, 7). As inmates in the C-Wing walked to the chow hall
for lunch, Plaintiff allegedly defended himself against an
inmate attack. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Correctional officers quickly
intervened and took steps to stop the fight. Id.
They forced Plaintiff to the ground and placed him in cuffs.
Id. After doing so, the officers continued to beat
Plaintiff while he was restrained on the ground. Id.
In the process, Officer Hyde allegedly broke Plaintiff's
nose and another officer broke his tooth. Id.
identifies the following officers in connection with the
incident: C/O Hyde, C/O McAnn, C/O Anderton and Lieutenant
Clark. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He claims that the officers were
“in cahoots” with the health care unit (HCU), but
does not elaborate. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages against Big Muddy, C/O Hyde, C/O McAnn and Lieutenant
Clark. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
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
reorganized the claims in Plaintiff's pro se
Complaint into the following enumerated counts:
Count 1 - Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants for using excessive force against Plaintiff on May