United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ross Ragsdale, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections currently housed in Illinois River Correctional
Center, brings this action seeking damages for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The events at issue occurred at Lawrence Correctional
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
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.
worked as an inmate porter and, in that position, he
frequently did favors for other inmates. (Doc. 1, p. 5). On
May 30, 2016, one inmate, Ray-Ray, became angry at Plaintiff
for refusing to do him a favor. Id. Ray-Ray
threatened Plaintiff. Id. The next day, Plaintiff
refused to leave his cell because he feared a confrontation
with Ray-Ray. Id.
1, 2016, Plaintiff told S. Allen that he was having problems
with Ray-Ray and asked to be moved. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). Allen
told Plaintiff that the Lieutenant would not authorize
movement because he didn't like doing the paperwork.
(Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff also told Cunningham about the
situation, but she just advised him to “beat his ass
and get it over with.” Id.
2, 2016, Plaintiff told Officer Tribble about the situation.
Id. Tribble told Plaintiff he couldn't move him
instantly and that Plaintiff needed to write to the placement
office. Id. Plaintiff followed that advice and wrote
to Mrs. Weaver in the placement office, but she never
raised the issue with Allen again on June 3, 2016, and she
told him not to worry about the situation any more since
Ray-Ray had not acted. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff went to chow
that night, and Ray-Ray sucker punched him in the left side
of his face, knocking him down. Id.
was taken to the health care unit and examined; he was then
taken to segregation. (Doc. 1, p. 8). In segregation,
Plaintiff's face began to swell and darken. Id.
Plaintiff suspected he had broken bones in his face.
Id. Plaintiff was taken to the health care unit once
more, where a nurse examined him and failed ...