United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jonathan McConville, a federal inmate who is currently
incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary located in
Marion, Illinois (“USP-Marion”), brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights by
persons acting under color of federal authority. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331; Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff names nine federal officials at
USP-Marion in connection with miscellaneous violations of his
rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
(Doc. 1, pp. 1-88). He seeks money damages and injunctive
relief against them. (Id. at p. 7).
case is now before the Court for review of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the
Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out
non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any
portion of a 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 must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the
pro se complaint are to be liberally construed.
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816,
821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Complaint spans 88 pages. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-88). Plaintiff
includes a half-page statement of claim, in which he
identifies the following claims against the defendants:
Fourteenth Amendment violation - violation of “Due
Process of Law, ” Denied adequate enough access to Law
Library and Legal materials. Denied access to the courts,
unreasonable restraint, Liberty interest Violation.
First Amendment Violation - (Prohibition of free Practice of
First Amendment Retaliation - Neglect / Disregard of Job
Eighth Amendment Violation - cruel and unusual punishment
Retaliation against inmates Participating in Federally
(Id. at p. 6). Plaintiff does not name any
defendants in connection with these claims. (Id.).
same page, Plaintiff refers to Exhibits B, B1, B2, B3, B4,
B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, and B11 and states that the 12 pages
of exhibits represent his “Factual Allegations.”
(Id.). In Exhibits B through B11, Plaintiff lists
various complaints against defendants in a timeline that
begins on May 7, 2019 and ends on July 24, 2019. (Doc. 1, pp.
14-36). In connection with some events, he names one or more
defendants. More often, he refers to no one. (Id.).
other things, Plaintiff complains of the following: a
violation of his Miranda rights (Doc. 1, p. 14); the
unfair issuance of a red card (id.); emotional
distress, sleep deprivation, and memory loss resulting from
the red card (id. at pp. 14, 20); improper handling
of his grievances about the red card (id. at pp. 14,
16); staff retaliation for a BP-8 and BP-9 that Plaintiff
filed (id. at pp. 16, 22); placement in the special
housing unit (S.H.U) for missing check-ins with staff
(id.); deprivation of personal property
(id. at pp. 18, 20); interference with religious
practice (id.); denial of mental health counseling
and treatment (id.); denial of access to a sink
while on suicide watch (id. at p. 24); one-time
denial of silverware while on suicide watch (id.);
denial of access to writing instruments, other than ink pens,
at law library (id. at pp. 24, 32, and 36);
placement “at the bottom of the list” for law
library (id.); retaliatory cell search (id.
at p. 26); harassment, provocation, threats, and verbal abuse
by staff (id. at pp. 24, 28); denial of recreation
time on “several” occasions in S.H.U.
(id. at pp. 30, ...