United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge
Travis Heffley, an inmate in Federal Correctional Institution
Otisville, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights for events that allegedly occurred at
United States Penitentiary Marion (“Marion”).
Plaintiff requests a restraining order against the
defendants. This 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.
reviewing the Complaint, the Court finds it appropriate to
exercise its discretion pursuant to 1915A; this case is
subject to summary dismissal.
alleges that the staff at Marion assaulted him a various
times. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Surgeries were performed on him at
Marion without his knowledge or consent. Id.
Plaintiff further alleges that he was not conscious during
either the assaults or the surgeries and thus has no
knowledge of who perpetrated the assaults or when they
occurred. Id. He thus seeks a restraining order
against all individuals that worked at Marion between March
1, 2009 and December 23, 2016. Id.
Complaint is too vague to state a claim. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” That standard
“demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Yet,
all Plaintiff has done here is generally allege that the
defendants harmed him, and what's worse, he has no idea
who the defendants are and so has named every employee of
Marion during his time there. Plaintiff's Complaint in no
way puts any defendant on notice of the claims against him or
her. Plaintiff has also admitted that he has named all of the
employees of Marion because he does not know who harmed him,
an admission that leads the Court to believe that Plaintiff
is in fact attempting to name some individuals as defendants
who have not harmed him. This is entirely unacceptable.
Plaintiff has done nothing more than speculate, and his
Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim.
even if Plaintiff had articulated a viable cause of action
against a defendant, he is not entitled to the relief he
seeks because a prison transfer moots any request for
injunctive relief. Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807,
811 (7th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff has not alleged that he will
be re-transferred to Marion, and so he has no valid claim for
injunctive relief against any of the staff there.