United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Ronnie Terrell, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”), brings
this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Second Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendants failed to protect
him from another inmate who attacked him, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 22). This case is now before the
Court for a preliminary review of the Second 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 Second Amended Complaint and any
supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to
exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is
subject to summary dismissal.
Second Amended Complaint
Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 22), Plaintiff makes the
following allegations: the Department of Corrections, as well
as the staff of Pinckneyville, allowed dangerous and violent
inmates to interact with minimum and medium security inmates,
“which led to the attack on Inmate Terrell” on
April 25, 2016. (Doc. 22, p. 7). These inmates “came
from a super max facility to Pinckneyville.”
Id. Plaintiff believes “the Department of
Corrections should and must be held liable under the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendment because they are directly
responsible for operating the Department of
warden [knew] that these detainee[s] had a very high
aggressive level so the warden formulated a plan to keep
those detainee[s] separate.” Id. This plan
only lasted for six months. Id. After the plan
“collapse[d], ” Plaintiff had his first encounter
with Terrance Kirksey, his assailant. Id. This
attack “could have been prevented if the lieutenant
would have separated either one of us.” (Doc. 22, p.
8). He “didn't take [Plaintiff's] request
seriously” which “ultimately would [cause] inmate
Terrell to be assaulted.” Id.
reflect the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, this
Court will modify Count 3, the only remaining count in this
case. 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.
Count 3 - Defendants failed to protect
Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment by allowing
inmates from a super max facility to interact with minimum
and medium security detainees, ...