United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ANTRELL A. TEEN, Plaintiff,
R. SMITH, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge.
Teen v. St. Clair County Jail et al., Case No.
17-cv-594-JPG (S.D. Ill. June 5, 2017) (“Original
Action”), Plaintiff Antrell A. Teen, an apparent
pretrial detainee incarcerated at St. Clair County Jail
(“Jail”), 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), two
conditions of confinement claims pertaining to boil orders
issued at the Jail in February 2016 (Count 4 directed against
unspecified parties) and February 2017 (Count 5 directed
against Smith) were severed from that initial action to form
the basis for this action, Case No. 17-cv-916-JPG.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of that
claims 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:
February 18-19, 2016, St. Clair County had a boil order in
effect. (Doc. 2, p. 4). Plaintiff was not notified that the
water was unsafe to drink, and he did not receive fresh water
until the last day of the boil order after he complained.
Id. There were no announcements made or signs placed
instructing inmates not to drink the water. Id.
Plaintiff put in sick call forms to the nurse on February 18
for nausea, headaches, diarrhea, and vomiting, but he was
never seen by medical. Id. Plaintiff asked C.O.
Riley Rilo about procedures during boil orders, but he was
unresponsive. Id. Plaintiff believes the supervisors
and administrators on duty at the time are at fault for
knowing of the boil order and not acting. Id.
February 2, 2017, there was another boil order in effect for
St. Clair County. Plaintiff was not notified that the water
was unsafe to drink. Id. Plaintiff became aware of
the order while watching the news. Id. At that
point, he began to complain, and requested bottled water from
Nurse Barbara, though she denied his request. Id.
C.O. Smith then told Plaintiff that the boil order was not
for “this county” and that the water was safe to
drink. Id. Plaintiff relayed what he had just heard
on the news and requested to speak to a supervisor.
Id. C.O. Smith left the area. Id. C.O.
Green then came on the intercom and ...