Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180404_0000771.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:19:23+00:00

Document:
LT. CRANMER, SGT. COLE, OFFICER COOK, OFFICER PHILLIPS, OFFICER ROSS, OFFICER HAWKINS, and OFFICER SNYDER, Defendants.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Alton City Jail (“the Jail”). He originally brought his claims in a joint action filed on October 10, 2017, with several other Alton inmates, Pasley, et al., v. Crammer, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1085-JPG. After the original Complaint was dismissed, Plaintiff filed an individual Complaint on February 8, 2018. (Doc. 2). In it, he asserts that he was denied access to legal material, and was thus unable to file a motion in his criminal case. Plaintiff's claims were severed into this action on March 1, 2018. (Doc. 1). The case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 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).
Applying these standards, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim survives threshold review under § 1915A.
Defendants denied Plaintiff access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 29 in Pasley, et al., v. Crammer, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1085-JPG).
Plaintiff states that he is a federal prisoner. (Doc. 2, p. 1, Doc. 2-1). The Jail does not have a law library, so at some point Plaintiff was informed that the correctional officers would provide him with legal materials “through request.” (Doc. 2, p. 1). However, after a “short period, ” officers stopped accepting requests for legal material and case law. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Cranmer and Ross told the Jail's correctional officers not to give out case law material. Id.
Plaintiff attaches an “Alton Police Department Federal Prisoner Grievance Procedure Form” dated October 12, 2017. (Doc. 2-1). Plaintiff talked to Phillips about obtaining legal case law. Plaintiff had requested case law in order to oppose a “stay” that was filed by the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Plaintiff's criminal case. United States v. Davis, Case No. 17-cr-30055-NJR (S.D. Ill.). (Doc. 2, p. 5; Doc. 2-1). Phillips told Plaintiff that he would have to do his own personal investigation in order to give Plaintiff a copy of a case. Phillips never provided Plaintiff with the requested case, even though Plaintiff told Phillips that his head Defense Counsel gave permission for Plaintiff to have it. Based on this denial, Plaintiff claims that Phillips denied him access to prepare a motion under Rule 3(c) for a Section 2255 proceeding. (Doc. 2-1).
Plaintiff seeks nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. (Doc. 2, p. 6). He also requests an injunction to remove him from the Jail. Id.
Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to characterize this pro se action in a single count, and for clarity, will maintain the number assigned to this count in the original action. 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.

References: v. 
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 v.