United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Norberto Torres, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at
Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks declarative and
injunctive relief and damages.
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
was an altercation at Menard in the West yard on December 7,
2015. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Shots were fired, and Plaintiff
immediately got down. Id. An officer came and
escorted Plaintiff to segregation, allegedly for lying in an
improper position. Id. When Plaintiff arrived at the
segregation building, he was interviewed by Bebout. (Doc. 1,
p. 6). Plaintiff told her that he did not know anything about
the incident and was not involved. Id. Bebout told
Plaintiff that he would be written up as participating in the
altercation and labeled a member of the “Latin
Folk” based on confidential informant testimony, unless
he cared to tell her otherwise. Id. Plaintiff asked
Bebout to review the camera footage, but she declined.
Id. Plaintiff threatened to file grievances, but
Bebout said that any grievance naming her would be destroyed.
Id. Plaintiff was taken back to his cell in
segregation. Id. A guard came and told Plaintiff
that he was being placed on investigative status per Spiller
and Bebout. (Doc. 1, p. 7). The guard also told Plaintiff
that Bebout was going to make sure he got a disciplinary
report because she does not like Hispanic males. Id.
December 9, 2015, Plaintiff received an investigative status
report. Id. Less than a week later, he received a
disciplinary report. Id. The disciplinary report was
authored by Spiller and contained everything Bebout said she
would include. Id.
December 22, 2015, Plaintiff appeared before the adjustment
committee, composed of Brookman and Jackson. Id. He
pleaded not guilty and denied being a gang member.
Id. Plaintiff was found guilty, solely on the basis
of the disciplinary report. Id. Plaintiff received
the final summary report on January 11, 2016, and received
one year C-grade, one year segregation, one year commissary
restriction, and six months contact visit restriction.
Id. Butler approved the report on December 31, 2015.
Plaintiff served his time in segregation, both on
investigative status and as a result of the disciplinary
sanctions, he was placed in a cell designed for one man but
made to house two. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff's
investigative status cell also had rusty bunks, a soiled
mattress, mold, and peeling paint. Id. It also
lacked ventilation and was infested with bugs. Id.
Plaintiff was also denied cleaning supplies. Id. He
alleges identical conditions in the cell he was moved to
after the guilty finding. Id. Plaintiff further
describes the conditions on pages 10 and 11 of the Complaint.
filed grievances regarding the disciplinary report, which
Butler denied in April 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 8). The
Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) remanded the
disciplinary proceedings back to Menard on November 14, 2016,
in order to comply with IDOC directives. (Doc. 1, ...