United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Thomas Newby, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Big Muddy Correctional Center, brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges
Howell used excessive force against him in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
case is now before the Court for preliminary 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. See 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).
makes the following allegations: On March 3, 2019, Plaintiff
got into a verbal disagreement with food supervisor Howell,
which resulted in Howell placing Plaintiff in a head lock,
grabbing him by the shirt, and pulling him to the ground.
Howell fell, causing Plaintiff to hit and injure his head
(Doc. 1, p. 6). As a result of the encounter, Plaintiff lost
his job. He asked both food supervisor Proctor and warden
Sullivan for his job back, but they refused. (Id. at
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate a single count in this pro
Count 1: Howell subjected Plaintiff to excessive
force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that
is mentioned in the Complaint but not
addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed
without prejudice as inadequately pled under
the Twombly pleading
alleges that he asked Proctor and Sullivan for his job back
after he lost his job because of his encounter with Howell,
but that they both refused to give him his job back. He
fails, however, to allege that their refusal resulted in a
deprivation of his constitutional rights. Because Plaintiff
fails to allege that Proctor and Sullivan violated his
constitutional rights, the Court DISMISSES
all potential claims against Proctor and Sullivan without
stage, the allegations of the Complaint state a viable claim
against Jerry Howell for excessive force. DeWalt v.
Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 619 (7th Cir. 2000).