United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Deandre Bradley, an inmate currently at Menard Correctional
Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for deprivations of his constitutional rights that occurred
at Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”).
Plaintiff requests monetary damages and injunctive
relief. This case is now before the Court for a
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
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 Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary
originally brought suit on August 3, 2017 against Defendants
Dennison, Smoot, David and Bradford. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). At
the time Plaintiff filed the original Complaint, he was
housed in the infirmary unit. He alleged that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his disability and that he
suffered 5 injuries between March 10, 2017 and August 3,
2017, some due to staff assaults. (Doc. 1, p. 1).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Lt. Bradford assaulted
him on July 17, 2017 because he was unhappy that Plaintiff
was being allowed to visit the dietary unit. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
Plaintiff also alleged that he was assaulted by Officers
Causey Maun, Olegs and Phelps, although he did not name them
as defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff claimed that he was
denied access to programs, services and activities because
Shawnee does not have adequate facilities to serve
handicapped inmates. (Doc. 1, p. 2). He also alleged that his
housing assignment denied him access to certain programs and
that he has been assaulted in the health care unit in the
past. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
asserted that he has grieved all of the incidents that form
the basis of this action. (Doc. 1, p. 5). However, he also
stated that the “majority of these are in the last
stage of exhausting [sic] in which have been sent to the
Administrative Review Board in which they have six months to
respond.” Id. Finally, Plaintiff alleged that
his health and safety were at risk and that “anything
could happen”. Id. Plaintiff was transferred
to Big Muddy River Correctional Center sometime prior to
August 27, 2017. (Doc. 8-1).
September 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.
(Doc. 8). The accompanying motion for leave to amend states
that the issues related to Plaintiff's safety had been
resolved. (Doc. 8-1, p. 1). The Amended Complaint alleges
that Shawnee was unable to accommodate Plaintiff's
disability, that Dr. David was deliberately indifferent to
his disability by failing to provide specific treatments and
medical devices, that Smoot and Dennison were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff's complaints and that it was
cruel and unusual punishment to assign Plaintiff to the
health care unit because it ...