United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
GREIGORY L. HOLMES, and JAMES JACOBS Plaintiffs,
LATORYA LOUNG, JUILENN LYNN, MELIENNA JONES, MERONDA KENNILE, CLARRISHA, DEBBRA, HALE, AMANDA YETS, DEATHROLL, SERBRITNA, JEVENA, SHAREL MOORE, MOORE, and MORGAN NETHER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Greigory Holmes, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests
damages. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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
alleges a variety of grievances, including that Owens and
Clarrishasigned his name to documents without his
knowledge (Doc. 1, p. 6); Loung and Moore put a
bio-electromagnetic weapon, called a “Harlan Girard,
” in his body without his consent by pretending that it
was a TB test (Id.); Plaintiff and his family were
tortured, causing him to take a case when he didn't want
to, sign over some money, and “steal artwork from
me.” (Id.); Jones, Yets, King, Mya, and Mary
ordered him and his family tortured (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7); Ann
has been stealing his mail (Doc. 1, p. 7); Loung and others
have sexually assaulted Plaintiff in his sleep
(Id.); Loung and others tricked Plaintiff's
family into coming to Menard Correctional Center and being
sexually assaulted (Id.); and Menard is taking money
out of Plaintiff's trust fund account (Id.).
alleges that he has grieved these issues, but the Head of the
Committee and all of the wardens from 2001 until present have
refused to stop it. Id. Plaintiff further alleges
that Lynn, Maue, Hale, Wall, Dilday, Middendorf, Craig,
Mitchell, and Hinsley retaliated against him for filing a
Plaintiff alleges that the Web, Cearson, and Jones families
set Plaintiff up on the case that he is serving time for
(Doc. 1, p. 8); that Plaintiff has had a boom box, 17
cassette tapes, art, 260 articles, and magazines stolen from
him during transfers (Id.); Staff made a $928.55
billion deal with Plaintiff on a Bible verse, and refused to
pay when they lost (Id.); and that due to the
“Harlan Girard” device described above, Plaintiff
has been enslaved by Menard's officers (Id.).
to addressing the merits of Plaintiff's claims, the Court
must address some preliminary matters. First of all,
Plaintiff has listed “James Jacobs” as a
co-Plaintiff, (Doc. 1, p. 1), but it does not appear that
Jacobs is actively participating in this lawsuit, or that any
of the allegations in the Complaint relate to him. The
Complaint form used by Plaintiff directs a litigant to submit
a separate sheet of paper listing any co-plaintiff's
name, aliases, I.D. number, place of confinement, and current
address, but no sheet was submitted on Jacobs' behalf.
(Doc. 1, p. 2). In fact, the Court has no address for Jacobs
at all. Jacobs did not sign the Complaint. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
The civil cover sheet submitted in connection with this suit
does not list Jacobs as a Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, p. 1). Jacobs
did not submit a motion to proceed IFP. Plaintiff has filed
two additional motions since bringing this case, neither of
them is signed by Jacobs. (Doc. 12) (Doc. 14). Most
importantly, Jacobs is not mentioned ...