United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Frank Dean Atherton, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, including a preliminary
injunction, (Doc. 7), declarative 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
originally filed this suit in the Central District on May 17,
2018. (Doc. 1). It was transferred to this District on May
29, 2018. (Doc. 8).
alleges that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights are
being violated by prison staff at Lawrence Correctional
Center. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the mailroom
improperly rejected his correspondence to a Miss Virginia
Evans on November 29, 2017 because a parolee lives with her.
(Doc. 1, p. 10). Plaintiff's letter to the Bruch Creek
Business requesting a catalog was also rejected by the
mailroom on November 29, 2017. Id.
received a note from the mailroom on November 7, 2017 noting
that they had intercepted an unauthorized item and stating
that Plaintiff must return or destroy the items within 30
days. Id. Plaintiff was not given the opportunity to
received open correspondence from the U.S. Department of
Justice on February 8, 2018. Id. The mailroom also
opened correspondence from the Illinois Court of Claims that
was clearly marked legal mail. Id.
was also corresponding with the Human Rights Defense Center
in Lakeworth, but his letter was rejected because Sabarish
Neelakanta was not an attorney of the state of Illinois.
Id. Plaintiff's letter to Charles J. Ogletree of
Harvard Law School ...