United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
LUKE D. CONWELL, Plaintiff,
MARCUS MARVIN, NURSE HOPE, PICKFORD, PEARL, JEFFREY M. DENNISON, HILLARD, MICHAEL P. DUNNING, ALFONSO DAVID, and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Luke Conwell, an inmate in Shawnee Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory relief, punitive relief, and declarative relief.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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.
filed this action on January 24, 2018. (Doc. 1). On May 7,
2018, the Court severed certain claims into a separate suit.
(Doc. 7). Plaintiff makes the following allegations as to the
claims remaining in this action:
March 20, 2017, Defendants Hope and Marvin were making rounds
passing out evening medication in the intake area, where
Plaintiff was housed. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). Plaintiff asked
Marvin for some toilet paper. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Marvin refused.
Id. Plaintiff stuck his hand out of the chuckhole
clutching the empty roll to show Marvin that he was truly out
of toilet paper. Id. Marvin refused. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
Plaintiff asked Marvin for a grievance form. Id.
Marvin then began slamming the chuckhole cover on
Plaintiff's hand and stabbing him with the large
chuckhole key. (Doc. 1, pp. 3, 12). Plaintiff's hand
began bleeding and swelling immediately. Id.
Plaintiff alleges he had a large gash in the shape of the
chuckhole key on his hand. Id. Marvin said,
“[n]ow write that up.” (Doc. 1, p. 3).
witnessed the entire incident and failed to intervene.
Id. Hope also turned a deaf ear to Plaintiff's
repeated requests for medical attention over the next 3 days.
(Doc. 1, p. 4). She told him to place a sick call slip, but
Plaintiff alleges that his sick call slips and grievances to
Warden Dennison went unanswered. Id. A day shift
nurse finally noticed Plaintiff's hand was infected on
March 27, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff was diagnosed with
a severe infection and his injuries prompted an investigation
against Marvin by internal affairs. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7).
Pickford and Pearl investigated the incident, but Plaintiff
alleges that they were biased against him from the start and
tried to cover it up. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-9).
alleges that Dennison retaliated against him for reporting
the incident by stamping Plaintiff's grievance
“received” on April 6, 2017, when Plaintiff
submitted it on March 20, 2017. (Doc. 1, pp. 13-14).
Plaintiff believes that Dennison deliberately back-dated his
grievance and contacted Marvin so that Marvin could retaliate
against Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 14).
alleges that Marvin retaliated against him by moving him to a
cell without power, when he knew that Plaintiff had a TV.
(Doc. 1, pp. 14-15). Plaintiff believes Marvin further
retaliated against him by causing the B. of I. officer to
charge Plaintiff $500 for a new prison ID when the cost is
$5.00. (Doc. 1, p. 15). Plaintiff alleges that it took weeks
to have his trust fund account corrected. Id.
Plaintiff also alleges that he was prevented from shopping at
the commissary on July 7, 2017 by non-defendant Ashmore,
which he believes is a further act of retaliation on
Marvin's behalf. (Doc. 1, pp. 15-16). Plaintiff wrote a
grievance about this issue, but Defendant Hillard refused to
process it because Plaintiff had requested demotions ...