United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Herndon United States District Judge.
Christopher Croom, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks
declarative relief and monetary damages. 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.
originally filed suit on June 9, 2017. (Doc. 1). After
Plaintiff filed this case, the Court determined that
Plaintiff had attempted to proceed on unrelated claims in the
same lawsuit. (Doc. 4). The Court dismissed some defendants
and severed some claims into separate lawsuits. (Doc. 4). The
Court then conducted a threshold review of this case and
considered Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc.
9). The Court found that Plaintiff had not adequately pleaded
personal involvement of any defendant in his conditions of
confinement claim and dismissed the Complaint accordingly.
(Doc. 9). The Court noted, however, that Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration contained additional facts not
available in the Complaint, and encouraged him to file an
Amended Complaint containing those facts. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff
submitted an Amended Complaint on August 7, 2017; it was
docketed on August 24, 2017. (Doc. 12).
Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff's constitutional
rights were violated when he was confined in a 36 square foot
cell on February 13, 2017. (Doc. 12, p. 5). The mattress had
a urine stain on it, and Plaintiff was deprived of cleaning
supplies, hygiene products, and showers for 18 days. (Doc.
12, pp. 5-6). He did not receive clothes or his eye glasses
for 10 days. (Doc. 12, p. 5). Plaintiff asked correctional
officers for hygiene products, but they told him to
“ask your homeboys” or “don't come to
seg.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that the cell was
too small to exercise in because the majority of the space is
taken up by the furniture. (Doc. 12, p. 6).
submitted 13 grievances to Dia Rodely on his conditions of
confinement issues; only 2 were answered. Id.
Plaintiff also alleges that Chief Administrative Officer
Lashbrook conducts rounds in segregation and has seen the
cell sizes with her own eyes. (Doc. 12, p. 7). Plaintiff also
alleges that he has sent Lashbrook letters, and she failed to
respond. (Doc. 12, p. 8). Plaintiff further alleges that
Lashbrook knows that counselors at Menard throw away
grievances and condones the practice. Id.
result of the cell size, Plaintiff has suffered a neck and
back injury because he cannot do stretching exercises in the
cell. (Doc. 12, p. 7). Plaintiff also suffers from
on the allegations of the Amended Complaint, the Court finds
it convenient to divide the pro se action into 2 counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a