United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ROBERT E. MORRIS, # R-71372, Plaintiff,
REVA ENGELAGE, TRISHA LAWRENCE, MS. WOOD, JOHN DOE, and JOHN/JANE DOE, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.
Morris v. Lee, Case No. 17-cv-857-NJR (S.D. Ill.
Aug. 14, 2017), Plaintiff Robert Morris, an inmate in Menard
Correctional Center, brought suit for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.
2007), two claims against Defendant Engelage were severed
from that initial action to form the basis for this action,
Case No. 17-cv-1167-NJR. On November 28, 2017, this Court
dismissed Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
(Doc. 6). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on
January 8, 2018. (Doc. 9).
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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.
fully considering the allegations in Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint and any exhibits, the Court concludes that
this action is subject to summary dismissal.
First Amended Complaint
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), Plaintiff makes the
following allegations: on December 31, 2016, Plaintiff was
seen by Defendant Engelage, an Emergency Medical Technician
(“EMT”), who was accompanied by Officer John Doe.
(Doc. 9, p. 11). Engelage attempted to complete a
tuberculosis test. Id. Plaintiff pleaded with
Officer John Doe and Engelage that the way Engelage wanted to
perform the test was illegal, unjust, and unsanitary.
Id. Officer John Doe, who had no security training,
told Plaintiff that he was “allowing her (EMT Reva) to
do her own thing, ” noting that “[s]he's been
doing this for years. Can't no inmate tell me anything
different.” Id. Plaintiff then showed Engelage
and Officer John Doe the rulebook where it outlines how
forensic tests are to be conducted in sanitary and safe
conditions. Id. Plaintiff refused to comply with the
test because Engelage wanted to perform it using the
“chuckhole” in Plaintiff's cell. Id.
Plaintiff contends that conducting a tuberculosis test in
this manner is unsanitary because Plaintiff and his cellmate
receive their food through the chuckhole, and the chuckhole
could contain “micro-miniature blood splatter.”
Id. Upon Plaintiff's refusal, Officer John Doe
and Engelage told Plaintiff to pack his things for
housed in segregation, Plaintiff was seen by the Adjustment
Committee Hearing Board and Lieutenant Brookman. Id.
The Adjustment Committee Final Summary Report from the
incident, which Plaintiff attached as an exhibit to the
original Complaint and requested to be attached to his First
Amended Complaint, indicates that Engelage issued Plaintiff
the disciplinary ticket for “failure to submit to
medical/forensic test.” (Doc. 2, p. 25). The ticket was
dismissed and expunged by committee members Brookman and Hart
on January 4, 2017. Id. The report indicates that it
was served on Plaintiff by Yvette Baker on January 27, 2017.
Id. Plaintiff claims he was left in segregation
wrongfully “because the authorized correctional
officials didn't release Plaintiff until he had sat for 6
full days.” (Doc. 9, p. 11).
9, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an inmate money voucher to the
records office requesting several documents, including
Plaintiff's disciplinary ticket from December 31, 2016.
(Doc. 9, p. 12). Inside the envelope was a letter to
Defendant Trisha Lawrence and the Records Office.
Id. On this letter, Lawrence indicated that
Plaintiff's ticket was “not in file.”
Id. On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a grievance
to Defendant Counselor Wood about his May 9, 2017 request for
his December 31, 2016 disciplinary report. (Doc. 9, p. 13).
Wood responded to the grievance, noting that the issue was
“out of time frame” and that there was no inmate
disciplinary report for December 31, 2016. Id.
Plaintiff believes this to be a cover-up. Id.
September 6, 2017, Plaintiff received a grievance response
from Defendant Grievance Officer John/Jane Doe in relation to
his letter to the Grievance Office on August 31, 2017, and to
the Records Office September 7, 2017. Id. John/Jane
Doe “toyed around with Plaintiff and his request
because [he or she] wanted to void all documents and filings