United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, U.S. CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE.
Rinaldo Bankston, an inmate in Shawnee Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that
occurred at Vandalia Correctional Center. Plaintiff requests
financial compensation. 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, the Court
finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under §
1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.
Second Amended Complaint
originally brought suit on July 10, 2017. (Doc. 1). The Court
conducted a threshold screening on September 13, 2017, and
dismissed the case because Plaintiff had failed to name a
proper defendant. (Doc. 5). The Court's prior order also
noted that many of the allegations in the original complaint
were speculative and that Plaintiff had not alleged that he
suffered from a physical injury. (Doc. 5, p. 3). Plaintiff
was granted leave to amend, and filed an amended complaint on
October 3, 2017. (Doc. 7). That complaint was unsigned, and
the Court directed Plaintiff to file a properly signed
complaint no later than November 27, 2017. (Doc. 8).
Plaintiff submitted a signed amended complaint on November
27, 2017, making it timely filed. (Doc. 9).
statement of claim in the Second Amended Complaint is a
photocopy of the statement of claim in the original
complaint. Generally, Plaintiff alleges that the buildings
and facilities at Vandalia Correctional Center were not
“up to code” and thus he was at risk of harm.
(Doc. 9, pp. 7-12). Specifically, he alleges that he might
have been subjected to lead poisoning, that someone
(including him) might have broken one of the glass windows at
the prison and used it to make a weapon, that the lack of air
conditioning might have caused him to become dehydrated, that
he might have gotten an infection, that the building was a
fire risk, that he smelled the toilets in the dormitory, that
his soda was too hot in the summer, that the use of fans
might have exacerbated his allergies, that there was a
scabies outbreak (Plaintiff never alleges he caught scabies),
that he caught toe fungus from used boots, and that Vandalia
did not have security cameras. Id.
specifically alleges that “there is alot [sic] of
things very much wrong here at Vandalia . . . that have
nothing to do with the Warden Stephanie Waggoner yet have
alot [sic] to do with the Number 2 an [sic] 3 Wardens,
Internal Affairs, Clinical Services, B of I, Health Care
Counselors, C/O's, Majors, Sgt's, and
Lt's.” (Doc. 9, p. 12).
Court previously dismissed this action because Plaintiff
brought suit against Vandalia Correctional Center itself, an
improper defendant. In its comments, the Court noted that
Plaintiff could only sue those individuals who are personally
involved in the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff
has done the exact opposite here. His statement of claim
specifically states that Waggoner is not responsible for any
of the conditions he complains about. ...