United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge
Jeremy Dean Hunt, Sr., formerly an inmate in Graham
Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of
his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $1,
000, 000. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the 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.
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
the Complaint is difficult to follow, Plaintiff appears to be
alleging that Defendant Swanson performed oral surgery
improperly, causing Plaintiff to suffer from a
“bad” cross bite, which makes it difficult to
chew. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff alleges that his teeth are
wearing out due to the improper cross bite and that he bites
his tongue and lips. Id. He also gets frequent
infections. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Swanson
deliberately performed the surgery improperly because the
State of Illinois owed him money, and so Swanson “took
it out” on Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff also
alleges that Swanson was “down on him” because of
his status as an inmate. Id.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 2 counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court.
Count 1 - Swanson was deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff's jaw condition when he
performed surgery improperly because of Plaintiff's
prisoner status and because the State of Illinois owed him