United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Herndon, United States District Judge
was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”), at the time he brought this
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He recently notified the Court that he is out of
prison and residing at the Centerstone facility in Marion,
Illinois. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff claims that Defendants
maintained a hazardous condition on the Pinckneyville grounds
which caused injury to him. This case is now before the Court
for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
§ 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss any portion
of the complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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 “no
reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.”
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. Conversely, a complaint is plausible on
its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations
as true, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th
Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or
implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a
plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574,
581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts “should not
accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a
cause of action or conclusory legal statements.”
Id. At the same time, however, the factual
allegations of a pro se complaint are to be
liberally construed. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d
742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
fully considering the allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court concludes that this action is subject to
was incarcerated at Pinckneyville in February 2017. He
regularly exercised by jogging outdoors during his yard and
recreation time. (Doc. 1, p. 4). While jogging in the #4
yard, Plaintiff tripped several times on metal objects that
were in the grass. Plaintiff wrote to Warden Jaimet and to
Assistant Warden Love, and to a counselor, about removing the
metal objects from the #4 yard. Id. However,
Plaintiff's request slips and grievances were never
answered, and nothing was done to address the problem. (Doc.
1, p. 5).
November 4, 2017, Plaintiff tripped again over one of the
metal objects in the #4 yard. This time, he fell and broke
his leg. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff filed grievances in
November and December 2017 over the metal objects, but again,
never received any response. Plaintiff wrote the counselor
one more time about the problem. The counselor told Plaintiff
that he “would have to file a lawsuit because all the
request slips and grievances [Plaintiff] wrote to both
Wardens have been filed in the round filing cabinet
‘trash can.'” (Doc. 1, p. 5).
asserts that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
safety because they “knew and refused to fix the metal
objects in the rec yard” that caused his injury. (Doc.
1, p. 6).
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Id.
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to characterize the pro se action in a
single count. 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 as
to its merit. Any other claim that is mentioned in the
Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be
considered dismissed without prejudice.
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Jaimet and Love, for failing to
remove protruding metal objects from the #4 yard after
Plaintiff informed them of the hazard.
shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a