United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Kendrick Jackson, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests
injunctive relief and damages. 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 exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
Kendrick Jackson makes the following allegations in the
Complaint: Major Edvald and a crew of officers, including
Defendants Lipe and Brown, shook down Plaintiff's cell on
November 28, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Lipe and Brown found an
altered pair of toenail clippers under Plaintiff's
cellmate's mattress. Id. They also broke
Plaintiff's MP3 player during the shakedown. Id.
As a result of finding the toenail clippers, both Plaintiff
and his cellmate were sent to segregation. Id. Lipe
and Brown wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary report, which was
approved by Edvald and Page. (Doc. 1-1, p. 3).
Plaintiff's segregation cell was unsanitary, covered in
blood and feces, subject to low water pressure, and infested
with insects. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
was charged with possession of dangerous contraband, even
though the disciplinary report noted that the contraband was
found underneath his cellmate's mattress. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
Plaintiff appeared before an adjustment committee of
Brookman, Hart, and John Doe on December 4, 2017.
Id. Plaintiff denied knowing anything about the
contraband. Id. He was not permitted to see the
contraband in question. Id. Plaintiff was found
guilty. Id. He was sentenced to 6 months'
segregation, 6 months' C grade, and 6 months'
commissary restriction. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
submitted a grievance regarding the discipline on December
15, 2017. Id. Lashbrook sustained the discipline.
Id. Plaintiff sent his grievance to Springfield on
January 22, 2018. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Springfield ultimately
determined that Plaintiff was disciplined in violation of
DR504.30, and affirmed Plaintiff's grievance. (Doc. 1, p.
7). Plaintiff received notice of the January 30, 2018
decision on February 13, 2018, but wasn't actually
released from segregation until February 21, 2018.
Id.; (Doc. 1-1, p. 9).
continued to write to the Warden about the inhumane
conditions in segregation. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He was never given
a mattress or a pillow, or moved out of his unsanitary cell.
Id. When Plaintiff was finally released from
segregation, he was assigned to a less-desirable cell than
the cell he had prior to the shakedown, which Plaintiff
alleges was retaliation for getting his discipline expunged.
(Doc. 1, pp. 9-10).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 4 Counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a