United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT, United States District Judge
Antrell Teen, who is currently detained at St. Clair County
Jail (“Jail”), filed a civil rights action
pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights at the Jail.
Teen v. John Doe #1, No. 18-cv-568-JPG-RJD (S.D.
Ill.) (“original action”). The Court severed the
claims in the original action into seven additional cases
pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.
2007). (Doc. 2). The instant case addresses two retaliation
claims (“Counts 6 and 7”) against Sergeant Masse.
(Doc. 2, pp. 7, 10; Doc. 2-1, p. 8). In connection with these
claims, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the
defendant. (Doc. 2, p. 11).
severed case is now subject to preliminary review 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.
2009). Counts 6 and 7 do not survive screening under this
standard and shall be dismissed.
October 4, 2017, Plaintiff allegedly gave legal mail to C/O
Jerry for delivery to the district court. (Doc.
2, p. 7). The mail did not actually reach the court until
October 25, 2017. Id. The “normal
uninterrupted time” for mail to reach the court is two
days. Id. In November 2017, C/O Carter also delayed the
delivery of Plaintiff's legal mail for more than two
this general time period, Plaintiff was subject to a deadline
for filing an amended complaint in Teen v. Peebles,
No. 17-cv-593-JPG-SCW (S.D. Ill.). (Doc. 2, p. 7). He had to
prepare and file the amended complaint in only three days, in
order to meet the court-imposed deadline. Id. The
delays caused his amended complaint to reach the court too
late, and his case was dismissed. Id.
Plaintiff's appeal was adversely impacted by these delays
and also dismissed. Id. Sergeant Masse and C/O
were supervisors in charge of mail during both incidents and
were allegedly responsible for the constitutional
deprivations. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the delays
were retaliatory in nature and aimed at preventing him from
succeeding with his civil complaints. Id.
also alleges that on November 7, 2017, Sergeant Masse slammed
a window shut in Plaintiff's face while he was speaking
with a nurse on AB-Block about a medical concern. (Doc. 2, p.
10; Doc. 2-1, p. 8). As a result, Plaintiff was unable to
obtain information or medical care from the nurse.
Id. Plaintiff maintains that Sergeant Masse's
conduct was discriminatory and retaliatory. Id.
severed case focuses on the following claims against Sergeant
Masse, which were designated as “Counts 6 ...