United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AMENDED COMPLAINT
BILLY MCDADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeding pro se, files an amended complaint
alleging excessive force and inhumane conditions of
confinement at the Pontiac Correctional Center
(“Pontiac”). The case is before the Court for a
merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing
the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as
true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir.
2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are
insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”
Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th
Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
While the pleading standard does not require “detailed
factual allegations”, it requires “more than an
accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx.
588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
5, 2017, Plaintiff was housed in the Pontiac West House in
cell number 904. Plaintiff's cell was submitted to a
shakedown by Officer Martinez, not a party. After the
shakedown, Plaintiff admittedly told the Officer to put his
stuff back or he would head-butt her. Plaintiff was given a
disciplinary ticket for intimidation/threats, and insolence.
He was taken to 5 Gallery on the North House and placed,
shackled, in a medical holding room. Major Prentice
approached, stating she heard he had threatened one of her
officers. Plaintiff replied, “so what you gonna
do?” Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Prentice
threatened to have his “head split”. She left the
room, and three minutes later Defendant Corley arrived with
three Orange Crush Tactical Team members. Plaintiff claims
that they stomped him in the ribs, back and knees. They
allegedly spit in his face and use a racially pejorative
term. Plaintiff claims to have lost consciousness and when he
awoke, Defendants had him standing, and were bending his
was taken to the 1 Gallery segregation area and placed in
cell number 733. Plaintiff makes the unadorned claim that he
was held there for eight days without a blanket, bed or
sheets. He does not allege that the cell was cold or that the
conditions caused him any harm.
case shall proceed on Plaintiff's claim that Defendants
Prentice, Corley and three Doe Orange Crush Team members
subjected him to an unconstitutional use of force. Plaintiff
fails to plead an inhumane conditions of confinement claim,
however, as he does not allege an extreme deprivation.
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992).
Conditions which are “restrictive and even harsh”
do not reach this standard. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452
U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Mere discomfort and inconvenience do
not implicate the Constitution. Caldwell v. Miller,
790 F.2d 589, 600-01 (7th Cir.1986). A prison
official does not become liable for inhumane conditions of
confinement “unless the official knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the
official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exists, and he must also draw the inference.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Here,
Plaintiff fails to identify an excessive risk to his health
or safety and this claim is DISMISSED.
previously noted, Plaintiff has disclosed that he filed his
complaint prior to the completion of the grievance process.
While a district court may dismiss at merit review if the
existence of a failure to exhaust defense is plainly pled,
the Court will reserve this matter for a more fully developed
record. Boyce v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 661
Fed.Appx. 441, 443 (7th Cir. 2016).
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
case shall proceed solely on the excessive force claims
against Defendants Prentice, Corley and three Doe Orange
Crush Team members. Plaintiff is advised that it will be his
responsibility, through initial disclosures and discovery, to
identify the Doe Defendants by name. All other claims will
not be included in the case, except in the Court's
discretion upon motion by a party for good cause shown, or by
leave of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Plaintiff's Motion for Status  is rendered MOOT.
Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to this
District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit
and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3)
a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this Order.
4. If a
Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of Service to the
Clerk within 30 days after the Waiver is sent, the Court will
take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that
Defendant and will require that Defendant pay the full costs
of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(d)(2). If a Defendant no longer works at the address
provided by Plaintiff, the entity for which Defendant worked
at the time identified in the Complaint shall provide to the
Clerk Defendant's current work address, or, if not known,
Defendant's forwarding address. This information will be
used only for purposes of effecting service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses will be maintained only by the Clerk and
shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by
Defendants shall file an answer within the prescribed by
Local Rule. A Motion to Dismiss is not an answer. The answer
it to include all defenses appropriate under the Federal
Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings are to address the
issues and claims identified in this Order.
Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been served,
but who is not represented by counsel, a copy of every filing
submitted by Plaintiff for consideration by the Court, and
shall also file a certificate of service stating the date on
which the copy was mailed. Any paper received by a District
Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with the
Clerk or that fails to include a required certificate of
service will be stricken by the Court.
counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not send
copies of filings to that Defendant or to that
Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file
Plaintiff's document electronically and send notice of
electronic filing to defense counsel. The notice of
electronic filing shall constitute notice to Defendant
pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If ...