United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JONATHAN W. BOHN, # 08570-025, Plaintiff,
LT. DUGDALE, and DR. SEARS, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for a preliminary merits review of
the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. The original Complaint was dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff then filed a First Amended
Complaint (Doc. 10), but also submitted several piecemeal
documents in an attempt to supplement his pleadings. (Docs.
6, 13). The Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to re-plead
his factual allegations in a single document (Doc. 14), and
he timely filed his Second Amended Complaint in response. He
also submitted motions requesting the Court to recruit
counsel for him. (Docs. 18, 19).
filed this action while he was an inmate in the
FCI-Greenville (“Greenville”). He has since been
transferred to the USP-Coleman in Florida. (Doc. 17).
§ 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).
these standards, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim
against one Defendant survives threshold review under §
Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 16)
the original Complaint indicated that Plaintiff was
attempting to bring a civil rights claim pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), as well as a Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”) claim, the Second Amended Complaint
contains no mention of a possible FTCA action. It shall
therefore be considered as a Bivens claim only.
claims that Lt. Dugdale and Dr Sears (Greenville
psychologist) failed to secure his safety, because they did
not find a razor which had been left in a Greenville
suicide-watch room where Plaintiff was placed in August 22
and 23, 2017. (Doc. 16, pp. 5, 9). Plaintiff found the razor,
and used it to slice his wrist 6 times.
Plaintiff was initially placed on suicide watch on August 22,
2017, he alleges that the room “was cleared and secured
by Lt. Dugdale and Dr. Sears[.] The razor was in said watch
room during and after the search.” (Doc. 16, p. 9). The
next day (August 23), Lt. Dugdale performed another search of
Plaintiff and the room. At that time Dugdale
“overlooked the razor that was in plain view on top of
the mattress, 2 feet from him.” Id. Dugdale
then left the room and secured Plaintiff inside. Plaintiff
notes that the search was recorded on video.
40 minutes later, Plaintiff used the razor to slice his
wrist. Id. The attached incident report and health
records note that Plaintiff's injuries were discovered
within 15-20 minutes, and he was treated for
“superficial” lacerations on his wrist and hand.
(Doc. 16, pp. 11, 14).
appeal of a disciplinary action arising from the suicide
attempt, Plaintiff maintained that he did not bring the razor
into the cell, but that it had been left there by someone
else. (Doc. 16, p. 12).
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an order
sending him to “a medical facility under psych care
& evaluation.” (Doc. 16, p. 6).
within the Second Amended Complaint is a page entitled
“Motion, ” in which Plaintiff seeks an order
releasing video footage of the incident and other related
evidence which he has been unable to obtain. (Doc. 16, p. 8).
The Clerk shall be ...