United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Michāel Villāgrān, a detainee at Chester
Mental Health Center (“CHMC”), brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of
his constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiff claims
that the defendants retaliated against him in violation of
his First Amendment rights for statements he made to another
detainee. (Doc. 1). This case is now before the Court for a
preliminary review of the Complaint 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.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to allow this case to proceed
past the threshold stage.
makes the following allegations in his Complaint (Doc. 1):
Plaintiff advised a patient, Jesse Morrise, that “it is
not wise to continue speaking to certain (STA's) that
work the modules.” (Doc. 1, p. 4). He used Defendant
Bruce Williams as an example, claiming that he “becomes
vindictive, belligerent, antagonizing, [and] harassing
towards patients.” Id. Plaintiff stated that
he has witnessed Williams being argumentative, annoying, and
cranky, with bouts of aggression, child-like emotional
behavior and manners, and weak intimidation tactics.
Id. He also stated that Williams' supervisors
and co-workers allow him to behave this way because he has
had his job for approximately 20 years. Id.
was eavesdropping on this conversation during which Plaintiff
told Morrise to “deal with problematic staff” by
filing a complaint, keeping cool, remaining unaggressive, not
being argumentative, and not letting them get to him.
Id. Plaintiff told Morrise that the staff has
“patients in a 4-point restraint when patients are most
vulnerable, defenseless, [and] unable to protect themselves
from retaliation, violence, attack, aggression, [and]
corporal punishment from [staff] who become their
tormenters.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). The rest of the staff
turns a blind eye to this behavior, or allows it and laughs
or smirks “like nothing serious has happened.”
Id. “It is well known amongst them and
patients alike that nothing will change.” Id.
Plaintiff cited to “cover ups, denials, retaliation,
[and] retribution if you dare speak out for patients and
staff alike.” Id. He stated that the
administration does not hold staff accountable for this
alleges that Defendants Bruce Williams and Will Miller
retaliated against Plaintiff, D. Lawrence, and J. Morrise
after Williams overheard Plaintiff's conversation with
Morrise, in that “they only picked [their] 3 rooms to
be shaken down and took items out of [their] rooms.”
Id. They then sent Ms. Jama Klausin to speak with
Plaintiff, Lawrence, and Morrise, and she tried to
“mislead, undermine, intimidate, discourage, [and]
discredit [them] on the true nature of the rules and from
voicing [their] concerns.” Id.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate a single count in this pro
se action. The parties and the Court will use this
designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The