United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
DEWAUN A. BERRY, No. K56415, Plaintiff,
JEFF DENNISON, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, United States District Judge
DeWaun A. Berry, an inmate in Shawnee Correctional Center
(“Shawnee”), brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff contends that his constitutional rights have
been violated because officials have failed to repair a hole
in his mattress. In connection with this claim, Plaintiff
names Jeff Dennison, Shawnee's warden, and seeks monetary
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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.
alleges that on July 14, 2017, he told a correctional officer
(identified as “Summers”) that the mattress in
his bunk was missing “the entire middle section”
or the springs. (Doc. 1, p. 5). The officer told Plaintiff he
would turn in a work order, but that he doubted anything
would be done. Id. Plaintiff also submitted a
grievance regarding the issue. Id.
19, 2017, Plaintiff was notified that repairs would be made
to his bunk the same day. Id. However, repairs were
never made and Plaintiff is still sleeping on the damaged
mattress. Id. Plaintiff claims that sleeping on the
damaged mattress is causing severe neck and back pain.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into a single
count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in
all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by
a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of this
count does not constitute an opinion regarding its merit.
Count 1 - Plaintiff has been subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement (sleeping on a
damaged mattress), in violation ...