United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Antrell Teen, an inmate in St. Clair County Jail, brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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; this action is subject to summary
originally brought this action as part of his claims in Case
18-cv-568-JPG-RJD (“18-568”). On April 19, 2018,
the Court found that not all of the claims in that action
were sufficiently related pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 18 and 20
so as to proceed in a single action, and severed claims
accordingly. (Doc. 1).
alleges the following with regards to the claim present in
this lawsuit: “Sgt Cook informed me the law library was
down and the following day I noticed another inmate using the
computer in the law library.” (Doc. 2, p. 6). Plaintiff
alleges that this conduct was in retaliation for
“seeking redress.” Id.
Court previously designated a single claim to proceed in this
Count 5 - First Amendment retaliation claim
against Cook, for denying Plaintiff access to the law
library, after Plaintiff attempted to file case(s) in court