United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jaime Castellanos, an inmate at Big Muddy River Correctional
Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for deprivations of his constitutional rights that occurred
while he was incarcerated at Vienna Correctional Center.
Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive, and declarative relief.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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; this action is subject to summary
makes the following allegations in the Complaint: In
September 2015, Plaintiff's family sent him approximately
80 pictures; 50 of which were confiscated by Defendant
Cheeks. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3). On October 22, 2015, Plaintiff
filed a grievance regarding the confiscation, alleging that
Cheeks was harassing him. Id.
a year later, on September 8, 2016, Plaintiff was caught with
contraband (a 20lb box of cheese). (Doc. 1, p. 3). As a
result, his cell was shaken down by Defendant Ramage.
Id. Plaintiff was later disciplined as a result of
the cell shakedown because it revealed pictures and letters
(among other contraband) that contained references to a
prohibited Security Threat Group (“STG”). (Doc.
1, p. 4). The pictures at issue were the same pictures that
Cheeks had permitted Plaintiff to keep a year earlier.
asked Cheeks to tell Ramage that he had authorized the
pictures, but Cheeks just said, “I'm not the one
writing the ticket.” Id. Plaintiff was
ultimately disciplined with 3 months segregation time, 3
months revocation of good time, 3 months C-grade, 3 months
phone restriction, 3 months commissary restriction, 3 months
recreation restriction, 6 months contact visit restriction,
and a disciplinary transfer. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 8, 19).
Plaintiff wanted to call Cheeks as a witness at his
disciplinary hearing to testify that he permitted Plaintiff
to have the pictures, but Shields refused to call him because
he wasn't the officer that wrote the ticket. (Doc. 1, p.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
appropriate to divide the Complaint into 3 Counts. The Court
will use these designations in all future pleadings and
orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of