McConville v. McCalister

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff 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.^[1] (Id. at p. 7).

         This 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).

         The Complaint

         The 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 religion)

First Amendment Retaliation - Neglect / Disregard of Job Responsibility

Eighth Amendment Violation - cruel and unusual punishment

Retaliation against inmates Participating in Federally Protected Activities.

(Id. at p. 6). Plaintiff does not name any defendants in connection with these claims. (Id.).

         On the 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.).

         Among 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, ...