United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JAMELL A. MURPHY, R71059, Plaintiff,
JOHN BALDWIN, JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, L.T. DAVID MITCHELL, C/O OFFICER PORTER, and C/O OFFICER JOHN DOE, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Herndon, United States District Judge.
Jamell A. Murphy, an inmate currently housed at Stateville
Correctional Center, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff brings allegations pertaining to an
excessive force incident that allegedly occurred while he was
housed at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”).
In connection with these claims, Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages and declaratory relief.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint (Doc. 1) 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. 2009).
to the Complaint, on June 16, 2017, Plaintiff was the victim
of excessive force. Plaintiff claims that at 10:00 a.m.
“West House Menard Eight Gallery Officer Web called gym
line.” (Doc. 6, p. 3). At around 10:45 a.m., inmates in
the west cell house (galleries 8 and 5) were ordered to leave
and exit the gym due to a separate incident. Id.
When 8 gallery was exiting the gym (but while Plaintiff was
still inside the gym doors), there was another altercation
between inmates and staff. Id. Plaintiff heard
Porter say, “Y'all keep acting up, I'm gonna
stomp one of you nigger's brains out.” Id.
At that point, warning shots were fired from two gun towers.
(Doc. 6, p. 4). All inmates were then ordered to get on the
ground and an altercation broke out next to Plaintiff.
Id. Lieutenant Mitchel ordered Officers Porter and
John Doe to handcuff Plaintiff and to make sure he kept his
“fucking head down.” Id. After Plaintiff
was restrained in handcuffs, Officers John Doe and Porter
stomped on his neck and face at the direction of Lieutenant
Mitchell. Id. During the assault, Officers John Doe
and Porter directed racial slurs at Plaintiff and told him to
“shut the fuck up.” Id. Plaintiff
suffered injuries to his mouth, chin, and face. Id.
Additionally, Plaintiff claims that he now suffers from
blurry vision, severe migraines and post-traumatic stress
disorder. Id. Plaintiff received medical treatment
for his injuries; however, he claims the treatment provider
merely documented his injuries without providing any
“direct medical treatment.” Id.
Plaintiff claims that he was subsequently placed in
segregation while the incident was investigated. (Doc. 1, p.
claims that his legal paperwork was confiscated as
retaliation “for the events in which he had no
involvement.” Id. Plaintiff does not allege
that the confiscation of his legal materials hindered his
ability to pursue any specific legal claim or associate this
claim with any specific defendant.
Review Under § 1915(A)
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into a single
count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in
all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by
a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of this
count does not constitute an opinion regarding its merit.
1 - Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against
Defendants for ...