United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Bryan McClurkin, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”),
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
several current and former high-ranking officials at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”) and the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff asserts claims against each of the defendants for
violating his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments and Illinois state law. He seeks declaratory
judgment and monetary damages. (Doc. 1, pp. 18-27).
case is now 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
Id. An 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
does not survive screening under this standard and shall be
Complaint, Plaintiff names several high-ranking prison
officials in connection with alleged violations of his rights
at Menard under federal and state law. (Doc. 1). These
officials include the current and former IDOC Directors, the
current and former prison wardens, the prison's
healthcare administrator, and a private medical corporation.
(Doc. 1, p. 1). Plaintiff asserts claims against each
defendant under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments,
as well as Illinois state law. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-27).
the Complaint is voluminous, it contains few factual
allegations against the defendants. Instead, it reads like a
memorandum of law. Plaintiff devotes most of the Complaint to
a discussion of the applicable law and citations to decisions
issued by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
through 13 of the Complaint contain some factual allegations,
but few actually refer to individual defendants. (Doc. 1, pp.
9-13). In place of detailed factual allegations, Plaintiff
refers to exhibits instead. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 1-26). The
exhibits include grievances that he filed over the course of
more than three years and medical records spanning the same
time period, among other things. Id. The exhibits
address many issues and touch upon numerous potential claims.
Id. Few involve the named defendants. Id.
claims seem to arise from injuries he sustained on or around
April 10, 2014, when he fell from a chair at Menard. (Doc. 1,
pp. 9-13, 32-36; Doc. 1-1, pp. 1-46). At the time, he was
handcuffed and sustained injuries to his wrist and neck.
Id. His neck injury apparently grew worse over time.
Id. Plaintiff began to experience intense pain in
his neck and back and even numbness in his left arm and hand.
Id. He submitted multiple requests for medical care
during his incarceration at Menard and was not satisfied with
the treatment he received. Id.
brings a claim of retaliation under the First Amendment,
deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, and
denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment against
the defendants. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-26). He also asserts claims
against Wexford for breach of contract and consumer fraud
under Illinois law. (Doc. 1, pp. 22-27). He names none of the
individual medical providers he saw at Menard in connection
with these claims. Id. All named defendants are