United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Jeremy Dean Hunt, Sr., formerly an inmate at Graham
Correctional Center (“Graham”), brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Amended 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 Amended Complaint and any supporting
exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its
authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to
originally brought this suit on February 5, 2018 in the
Central District of Illinois. (Doc. 1). It was transferred to
this Court on February 7, 2018. (Doc. 4). On April 18, 2018,
the Court dismissed the Complaint under § 1915A for
failure to state a claim. (Doc. 15). Specifically, the Court
found that Count 1 (deliberate indifference) failed to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted because it did not
include sufficient facts to make it plausible that Swanson
(then the only named Defendant) acted with deliberate
indifference. (Doc. 15, p. 4). The Court also noted that the
Complaint did not specifically allege that Swanson was a
state actor or acted under the color of state law. (Doc. 15,
p. 3). Finally, the Court found that Plaintiff was attempting
to state a medical negligence claim against Swanson, but
dismissed that claim because Plaintiff had not complied with
Illinois state law. (Doc. 15, pp. 4-6). Plaintiff filed the
First Amended Complaint presently before the Court on May 1,
2018. (Doc. 18).
First Amended Complaint asserts a deliberate indifference
claim. (Doc. 18, p. 5). He alleges that the wrong procedure
done - that it was “just a bandaide(sic).”
Id. Plaintiff also alleges that as a result, he now
has a terrible cross-bite, which makes it difficult to eat
and chew. Id.
Amended Complaint contains even less detail than his original
Complaint, and thus fails to correct any of the problems
described by the Court in its prior Order. In fact, the
allegations are essentially identical to the original
Complaint. Generally, an amended complaint that states the
same facts using different language will be futile.
Garcia v. City of Chicago, Ill., 24 F.3d 966, 970
(7th Cir. 1994).
Court previously noted it was unclear that Plaintiff had
named a state actor for purposes of pursuing a § 1983
claim. The Amended Complaint names five additional
individuals; 3 lieutenants at Graham, ...