United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ROBERT E. MORRIS, # R-71372, Plaintiff,
R. ENGELAGE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Morris v. Lee, Case No. 17-cv-857-NJR (S.D. Ill.
Aug. 14, 2017), Plaintiff Robert Morris, an inmate in Menard
Correctional Center, brought suit for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.
2007), two claims against Defendant Engelage were severed
from that initial action to form the basis for this action,
Case No. 17-cv-1167-NJR.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of
those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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: on December 31, 2016,
Plaintiff was seen by Engelage, an EMT. Engelage
attempted to complete a tuberculosis test. Id.
Plaintiff refused to comply because Engelage wanted to
perform the test using the “chuckhole” in
Plaintiff's cell. Id. Plaintiff contends that
conducting a tuberculosis test in this manner (1) is
unsanitary - because both Plaintiff and his cellmate receive
their food through the chuckhole and thus the chuckhole could
contain “micro-miniature blood splatter” and (2)
violates prison procedures for medical/forensic examinations.
Plaintiff refused, Engelage issued a disciplinary ticket for
failure to submit to medical/forensic testing. (Doc. 2, pp.
10, 23-25). In connection with this disciplinary ticket,
Plaintiff spent between four and six days in segregation.
(Doc. 2, p. 10 (alleging four days in segregation) and Doc.
2, p. 24 (alleging six days in segregation)). Eventually,
Plaintiff was seen by Brookman, the adjustment
committee/hearing board chairman. (Doc. 2, p. 10).
Thereafter, Plaintiff was released from segregation.
Id. The disciplinary ticket was subsequently
expunged. (Doc. 2, pp. 23-25). The Complaint suggests that
Plaintiff is alleging issuance of the disciplinary ticket was
unjustified. (Doc. 2, p. 10). The Complaint does not address
what, if any, procedural protections Plaintiff was afforded
in connection with the disciplinary ticket and his time in
Severance Order (Doc. 1), the Court designated the following
counts to be severed into this pro se action. The
parties and the Court will continue to use these designations
in all future pleadings and ...