United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
SHANE A. KITTERMAN, #B-80577 Plaintiff,
OFFICER DUNNE, OFFICER SAMMS, and OFFICER EDWARDS, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Kitterman v. Dennison, Case No. 17-cv-290-SMY (S.D.
Ill.) (“Original Action”), Plaintiff Shane A.
Kitterman, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently housed in Shawnee
Correctional Center (“Shawnee”), brought suit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his
constitutional rights. The deprivations allegedly occurred at
Shawnee and Big Muddy River Correctional Center. Pursuant to
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), two
Eighth Amendment claims directed against officers at Shawnee
(Count 8 directed against Officer Dunne and Count 9 directed
against Officer Dunne, Officer Samms, and Officer Edwards)
were severed from that initial action to form the basis for
this action, Case No. 18-cv-114-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
(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 such relief.
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.
allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) relevant to
this severed action are as follows: Between April and July
2017, after filing the Original Action, Plaintiff allegedly
became the target of assault by corrections officers at
Shawnee. (Doc. 2, p. 18). He describes one of these assaults
by Officer Dunne. Sometime during this time period, the
officer ordered Plaintiff to remove his clothing during a
routine strip search conducted pursuant to “normal
practices” while preparing for a scheduled visit.
Id. While searching Plaintiff, Officer Dunne
allegedly fondled his genitals. Id. Plaintiff was
afraid for his safety. Id. He remained quiet until
he felt safe enough to report the incident to a mental health
care provider, who prepared a report. (Doc. 2, p. 19). When
Officer Dunne learned about Plaintiff's report, he
removed a property box from another inmate's cell and
threw it at Plaintiff. Id. He also reported this
13, 2017, Officer Dunne instructed Officer Samms and Officer
Edwards to “[d]eadlock” Plaintiff in his cell and
deprive him of food, water, exercise, and contact. (Doc. 2,
p. 19). Plaintiff does not indicate whether they carried out
these orders or describe how long he was subject to these
deprivations. Id. He simply alleges that he was
placed in solitary confinement for “several days,
” after his wife complained to internal affairs. (Doc.
2, pp. 19-20). Plaintiff allegedly continued to receive
threats from Officer Dunne, but he offers no information
about the dates, frequency, or nature of these threats. (Doc.
2, p. 20).
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 this designation
in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed
by a judicial officer of this Court.
Count 8: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Officer Dunne for allegedly
fondling Plaintiff's genitals during a routine strip
search at Shawnee ...