United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Michael Hubbard, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center
(‘Menard”), brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff requests “all parties involved held
accountable” 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.
careful review of the Amended Complaint and any supporting
exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its
authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to
originally filed suit on June 28, 2017. (Doc. 1). The Court
conducted a 1915A review of the original Complaint and
dismissed it without prejudice on August 22, 2017, finding
that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim in numerous
respects. (Doc. 5).
Court noted that although Plaintiff had alleged that his
cellmate sexually assaulted him, he did not allege any facts
suggesting that any official knew about a specific threat to
Plaintiff and failed to take action to protect him. (Doc. 5,
p. 3). Plaintiff also alleged that his subsequent medical
treatment was delayed, but failed to allege that he was
harmed by any of the delays he experienced. (Doc. 5, pp.
3-4). Likewise, while Plaintiff alleged that he was denied
protective custody, he failed to explain what harm he
suffered as a result of the denial. (Doc. 5, p. 4).
the Court noted that the Complaint named a sole defendant,
Kim Butler, despite the lack of any allegations that Butler
was personally involved in any of the conduct at issue.
Id. The Court explained that personal involvement is
required and that Plaintiff cannot name supervisory officials
simply because of their positions. (Doc. 5, pp. 4-5). As a
result of these pleading deficiencies, the Court directed
Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint.
filed his Amended Complaint on September 11, 2017. (Doc. 6).
The Amended Complaint is a photocopy of the original
Complaint with a single page containing additional facts
attached at the end. (Doc. 6, p. 16). Once again, Butler is
the only named defendant.
recounted in the Court's prior Order, Plaintiff alleges
that his cellmate began sexually abusing him in June 2015.
(Doc. 6, p. 5). Plaintiff was later moved to East House and
reported the abuse during a sick call visit on July 25, 2015.
(Doc. 6, pp. 5, 11). The doctor denied Plaintiff a full STD
test, but administered an HIV test. (Doc. 6, p. 5). Plaintiff
was not given his ...