United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge.
currently incarcerated at the St. Clair County Jail
(“the Jail”), has brought this pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants ignored his complaint about
a food allergy. This case is now before the Court for a
preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss any portion
of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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 “no
reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.”
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. Conversely, a
complaint is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to
accept factual allegations as true, see Smith v.
Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some factual
allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail
to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's claim.
Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009).
Additionally, Courts “should not accept as adequate
abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or
conclusory legal statements.” Id. At the same
time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Arnett v.
Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011);
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816,
821 (7th Cir. 2009).
fully considering the allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court concludes that this action is subject to
summary dismissal. However, Plaintiff shall be allowed an
opportunity to submit an amended complaint, to correct the
deficiencies in his pleading. If the amended complaint still
fails to state a claim, or if Plaintiff does not submit an
amended complaint, the entire case shall be dismissed with
prejudice, and the dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant
to § 1915(g). The amended complaint shall be subject to
review under § 1915A.
submitted only a one-paragraph statement of claim, which is
I Derrick Jennings spoke with the medical staff about been
[sic] allergic to mustard and I have been receiving mustard
on all of my meat each day[.] I have to give up my food
because the medical staff refuse to acknowledge Ms. Mary
Davis about my medical food allergic [sic].
(Doc. 1, p. 1). Plaintiff also submitted 4 pages of
instructions from the Court's standard Pro Se
Civil Complaint form (Doc. 1, pp. 2-5), but he did not submit
the completed complaint form itself. Plaintiff does not
request any relief from the Court.
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
on the sparse allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds
it convenient to characterize the pro se action in a
single count. The parties and the Court will use this
designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The
designation of this count does not constitute an opinion as
to its merit. Any other claim that is mentioned in the
Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be
considered dismissed without prejudice.
Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Unknown St. Clair County Jail Medical Staff, for failing to
serve Plaintiff food that is free of mustard, in response to
Plaintiff's report that he is allergic to mustard.
1, and the Complaint, shall be dismissed without prejudice at
this time, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
of Count 1 - Deliberate ...