United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Herndon United States District Judge
Alex Hardin, an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks
damages. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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.
received a disciplinary ticket on September 29, 2017 and was
brought to segregation as a result. (Doc. 1-1, p. 2).
Plaintiff was placed in a shower unit and told to strip
naked. Id. Plaintiff refused and asked to speak to
Warden Thompson instead. Id. Thompson came to the
showers with members of the Orange Crush Tactical Team. (Doc.
1-1, p. 3). Thompson promised to discuss the situation with
Plaintiff if he agreed to the strip search. Id.
Plaintiff was told to cuff up, and he turned around and
cuffed up. Id. As soon as Plaintiff cuffed up, an
orange crush tactical team member began yanking on
Plaintiff's arms and wrists. (Doc. 1, p. 5). They pulled
Plaintiff's arms up forcefully and squeezed the handcuffs
tighter, all while pushing Plaintiff's head and neck
downwards. Id. These actions were painful to
Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff was then marched to a
different unit. Id.
Plaintiff reached the 5-House A-unit segregation shower, he
was forced to strip naked. Id. When Plaintiff did
not move fast enough for the Orange Crush Tactical Team
member, they began ripping his clothes off, causing further
bruises. Id. Plaintiff was stripped searched.
Id. An Orange Crush member then escorted Plaintiff
down the gallery naked in front of the other inmates.
Id. Thompson and Pearce were present. Id.
When Plaintiff stopped walking out of embarrassment, his arms
were once again yanked above his head and his upper body
pushed down, causing pain. Id. Plaintiff was then
dragged down the gallery. Id.
Plaintiff was forced into a cell that had feces on the floor,
wall, and toilet, smelled of urine, and had ants, gnats, and
spiders. Id. Plaintiff showed Thompson the
conditions of the cell, but he just replied,
“What's done is done.” (Doc. 1-1, pp. 5-6).
Pearce was also present. (Doc. 1-1, p. 6).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 3 counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. The following claims survive
Count 1 - Thompson, Pearce, and the Orange Crush Tactical
Team members used excessive force on Plaintiff on September
29, 2017 in ...