United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge.
Carl Mack, an inmate in Shawnee Correctional Center, brings
this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks $1, 000,
000 in compensatory damages. 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.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
arrived at Shawnee Correctional Center on August 29, 2017
from Stateville Northern Reception Center. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He
alleges that he had a valid low bunk permit issued by medical
providers at Stateville due to swelling in his feet, a
complication from diabetes. Id. Security staff
informed Plaintiff that his permit was not valid and that
medical staff would have to issue a new one. Id.
Plaintiff saw defendant Nurse Kasey, who also told him that
his low bunk permit was not valid and that he would have to
see the doctor at Shawnee to be screened for a low bunk low
gallery permit. Id. Plaintiff tried to explain to
Kasey that he needed the low bunk permit, but she told him
there was nothing she could do. Id. Plaintiff was
assigned to a top bunk and a top gallery. Id.
August 30, 2017, Officer Sullivan called medical and spoke
with Nurse Laurel, who re-iterated that Plaintiff did not
have a valid permit. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff was
transferred into general population that day, and again
assigned to the top bunk, top gallery. Id.
fell out of his bunk on September 1, 2017, injuring his
shoulder. Id. He was taken to the health care unit
and given Motrin for shoulder pain. Id.
Plaintiff's blood sugar was a low 59 at the time.
Id. That same day, medical determined that his low
bunk low gallery permit was valid and ordered him moved.
Id. Plaintiff is still experiencing shoulder pain.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into a single count.
The parties and the Court will use this designation in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a