United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge
Devonte Lindsey, an apparent pretrial detainee currently
housed at St. Clair County Jail (“Jail), filed this
pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff claims that three Jail officials failed to protect
him from an attack by other detainees at the Jail in November
2016. He seeks monetary relief.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint (Doc. 1) 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 such relief.
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.
makes the following allegations in the Complaint: In November
2016, Plaintiff was housed in H-Block at the Jail. (Doc. 1,
p. 5). The cell doors in H-Block do not lock, and Plaintiff
was housed with “foes” he had “previous
altercations with.” Id. According to
Plaintiff, some inmates had a habit of exiting their cells
after lockdown to “taunt, bully, and fight” other
inmates, and, at times, “multiple aggressors would
fight one inmate.” Id. Plaintiff claims that
“this” happened to him around 11:00 pm, when he
was “slammed on [his] neck and head.” Plaintiff
also claims that, during another fight, presumably under
similar circumstances, he was injured, requiring stitches in
his face. Id. After the second incident, Plaintiff
was transferred to another section of the Jail. Id.
to the Complaint, prior to being housed on H-Block, Plaintiff
told “jail staff” that he had been in
altercations with other inmates housed in H-Block. But,
“they” disregarded Plaintiff's concerns.
Id. Plaintiff also claims he told C/O Compton, C/O
Herndon, and C/O Collins about “these dangerous
conditions before they occurred, ” and claims that
these individuals knew the doors on H-Block did not lock and
knew that an incident was likely. Id. Plaintiff also
claims that he turned in complaints to C/O Compton.
Id. Despite Plaintiff's complaints, Defendants
did not take any steps to prevent the alleged altercations.
claims that dangerous conditions at the Jail persist because
inmates are housed in cells that do not lock. Id. As
a result, Plaintiff does not feel safe when he sleeps and is
experiencing emotional and physical stress. Id.
Review Under § 1915(A)
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the prose action into
the following Count. 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