United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge
Teen v. John Doe #1, No. 18-cv-568-JPG-RJD (S.D.
Ill. Mar. 13, 2018), Plaintiff Antrell Teen, a detainee in
St. Clair County Jail, brought suit for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.
2007), a claim against Defendants Smith and Shuberg was
severed from that initial action to form the basis for this
action, No. 18-cv-995-JPG.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of that
claim 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.
fully considering the relevant allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court concludes that this action shall proceed
past the threshold stage.
allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) relevant to
this severed action are as follows: on or about January 25,
2018, C/O Smith (who Plaintiff sued in a 2017 civil action
involving a boil order), targeted Plaintiff with a
disciplinary action. (Doc. 2, pp. 7-8; Doc. 2-1, pp. 19-20).
Smith falsely claimed that Plaintiff interrupted an
investigation and was disrespectful. As a result, Plaintiff
was moved to a restrictive area and then to L-Block. This
punishment was much harsher than the typical outcome for a
disciplinary ticket. Although Plaintiff contested the matter
as retaliatory and offered witnesses who testified that Smith
had not been truthful, Sgt. Shoeberg (a/k/a
Shuberg) refused to investigate the matter.
Plaintiff alleges that the disciplinary record will
negatively affect his classification in the future. Further,
Shuberg/Shoeberg punished Plaintiff excessively by
restricting his commissary beyond the date that the
restriction should have been lifted. (Doc. 2, p. 8).
Severance Order (Doc. 1), the Court designated the following
count to be severed into this pro se action. The
parties and the Court will continue to use this designation
in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed
by a judicial officer of this Court.
Count 8 - First Amendment retaliation claims
against Smith from bringing a false disciplinary charge on
January 25, 2018, and against Shuberg/Shoeberg for refusing
to investigate the false charge and imposing ...