United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Richard Thompson, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights that allegedly
occurred at Big Muddy River Correctional Center (“Big
Muddy”). In his Complaint, plaintiff claims the
defendant subjected him to excessive force in violation of
the Eighth Amendment (doc. 1). 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 allow this case to proceed
past the threshold stage.
Complaint (doc. 1), plaintiff makes the following
allegations: on January 17, 2018, plaintiff was in bed in his
cell when Myers forced him out of bed and slammed him
repeatedly against it (doc. 1, pp. 5, 7). His back was
injured by this, and he presently cannot bend or twist it
(doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff is in a lot of pain and is certain
he will need back surgery. Id. “All this could
have [been] avoided if Major Myers hadn't [slammed his]
back repeatedly against the bed” even after plaintiff
told him that he had back problems (doc. 1, pp. 5, 7). Myers
cuffed plaintiff so that his arms were “bent over
forcefully all the way over the Plaintiff's head.”
[Doc. 1, pp. 7-8]. This reinjured plaintiff's right
shoulder that he had surgery on in January 2015. Id.
the nurse a week to give plaintiff pain medication, and when
he received X-rays after the attack, they showed that
plaintiff's back was fractured from his being slammed
against an object (doc. 1, p. 8). When plaintiff told the
doctor about the incident with Myers, the doctor agreed with
plaintiff that Myers slamming him against the bed caused the
fractures (doc. 1, pp. 8-9). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages
from Myers (doc. 1, p. 6).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate a single count in this pro
se action. The parties and the Court will use this
designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The
designation of this count does not constitute an opinion
regarding its merit.
Count 1 - Myers subjected Plaintiff to
excessive force on January 17, 2018 in violation of the