United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ANTHONY T. MOORE, Jr., #446508, Plaintiff,
JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, and C/O WALT, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert District Judge United States District Court
Anthony Moore, Jr. filed this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, in order to address several violations
of his constitutional rights at St. Clair County Jail
(“Jail”). (Doc. 1). This Court screened the
Complaint and concluded that the three claims identified in
the Complaint were improperly joined in a single action. The
Court severed two claims (Counts 2 and 3) into separate
only claim at issue in this action is Count 1, a claim of
mail interference against C/O Walt, John Doe 1, and John Doe
2. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff alleges that these defendants
interfered with his incoming legal mail in Moore, Jr. v.
Scott, et al., No. 17-cv-01153-JPG (S.D. Ill). (Doc. 1,
p. 8). Plaintiff did not receive an “important
letter” from the Court directing him to file an amended
complaint, and the action was dismissed. Id. He now
seeks monetary damages against the defendants. (Doc. 1, p.
is subject to screening under 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.
filed the instant action after learning that a civil rights
case he filed in this District was dismissed on April 18,
2018. See Moore, Jr. v. Scott, et al., No.
17-cv-01153-JPG (S.D. Ill.). (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff
allegedly had no opportunity to amend the complaint because
C/O Walt, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 failed to provide him
with his incoming mail on a single occasion. Id.
Plaintiff did not receive an “important letter”
from the Court ordering him to file an amended complaint by a
date certain. Id. He missed the court-imposed
deadline, and the action was dismissed. Id. Had he
known about the impending deadline, Plaintiff alleges that he
would have corrected any defects in the complaint and timely
filed an amended complaint. Id.
Court previously characterized Plaintiff's claim as
follows, and the parties and Court will use this designation
in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed
by a judicial officer of this Court:
Count 1 - First and/or Fourteenth Amendment
claim against Defendants Walt, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 for
interfering with Plaintiff's mail and thereby denying him
access to the courts in Moore, Jr. v. Scott, ...