United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Stanley Boclair, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff contends that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights, as well as state law, by losing,
destroying, and/or mishandling his grievances.
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.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary
claims that Lashbrook (Menard's Warden), Hill (a
Correctional counselor), Baldwin (Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections), and Cahr (an Administrative
Review Board Member), violated his constitutional rights, as
well as state law, by destroying and/or failing to address
his grievances. According to the Complaint, the grievances
included complaints about disability accommodation,
retaliation, and the mishandling of grievances. (Doc. 1, pp.
7-11). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his grievances
were ignored and/or destroyed on the following occasions:
• On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an emergency
grievance (dated February 9, 2017) to Lashbrook. (Doc. 1, p.
7). The grievance related to alleged racial animus by an
individual identified as Sergeant Harris (not a defendant in
this action). Id. Plaintiff claims that Lashbrook
destroyed the grievance. Id.
• On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff personally delivered an
emergency grievance (dated March 9, 2017) to Hill, a
Correctional Counselor. Id. Plaintiff claims that
Hill destroyed the grievance. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
• On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an emergency
grievance (dated June 12, 2017) to Lashbrook. Id.
Plaintiff claims that ...