United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Scott Medford, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that
allegedly occurred at St. Clair County Jail. This case is now
before the Court for a preliminary review of the Amended
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.
careful review of the Amended Complaint and any supporting
exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its
authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to
originally brought suit in case No. 17-cv-243-JPG on March 8,
2017. (Doc. 2). On September 21, 2017, the Court severed the
claims in that lawsuit into separate cases, including this
one. (Doc. 1). The severance Order noted that the Complaint
named people in the body of the Complaint, but not in the
case caption, which precluded the Court from recognizing
those individuals as parties. In particular, it noted that it
appeared that Plaintiff intended Count 7, the claim in this
case, to proceed against C/O Everett and that the Court may
consider granting Plaintiff leave to correct that deficiency.
(Doc. 1, p. 9). On October 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion
asking for an extension of time to file an amended complaint.
(Doc. 6). On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint against Everett. (Doc. 7).
parties may amend their pleadings once as a matter of course.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). An amended complaint supersedes and
replaces the original, rendering the original void. See
Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d
632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court therefore accepts
the Amended Complaint and reviews it pursuant to §
statement of claims in its entirety reads as follows:
“On March 2017 I asked C/O Everett to sign my forma
pauperis form to farther my civil suit. He denied me and told
me he couldn't help me. The C/O Everett display
negligence boldly talked down to inmates and are extreme
unresponsive.” (Doc. 7, p. 5) (grammatical and spelling
errors in original).
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, ...