United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
QUENNEL T. AUGUSTA, #K-81797,, Plaintiff,
STEPHANIE WAGGONER, JOHN DOE, JOHN BALDWIN, and BRUCE RAUNER,, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Quennel Augusta brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680.
His Second Amended Complaint is now before the Court for
preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 18).
In it, Plaintiff alleges that he was injured at Vandalia
Correctional Center (“Vandalia”) while moving
property boxes onto a trailer. (Doc. 18, pp. 5-13). He blames
the defendants for forcing him to move the boxes in wet
conditions without any protective gear. Id.
Plaintiff brings claims against them for cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment and for the denial of
equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Id. He seeks monetary relief. (Doc. 18, p. 14).
Second Amended Complaint is now subject to review 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
Id. An 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 in the pro se complaint are to be
liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint does not survive
screening under this standard and shall be dismissed.
September or October 2017, Plaintiff injured his leg at
Vandalia. (Doc. 18, pp. 5-13). Several inmates were moving to
the prison's work camp on a rainy day. Id.
Stephanie Waggoner and another unknown staff member
(“John Doe”) ordered Plaintiff to help the
inmates move their property boxes onto a wet trailer.
Id. While stepping off the trailer, Plaintiff
slipped and fell on the rusted bumper. (Doc. 18, pp. 5-6). He
lost a “chun[k] of meat” from his leg and
“lots of blood.” Id.
injuries were treated without any alleged delay. (Doc. 18,
pp. 6-7). He received ten stitches in his leg. (Doc. 18, p.
6). However, he continues to suffer from pain when walking.
blames Waggoner and Doe for his injuries. (Doc. 18, p. 6). He
states that they denied him protective gear while forcing him
to move heavy boxes in the rain. Id. Plaintiff
characterizes their conduct as negligence, torture, cruel and
unusual punishment, and a denial of equal protection. (Doc.
18, pp. 6-8).
reasserts three of the four claims from his First Amended