Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Suddoth v. Moore

March 16, 2006

DANNY SUDDOTH, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THOMAS MOORE, WALTER J. MEYER, JOHN EVANS, ROGER E. WALKER, JR., KEVIN WINTER, KELLY GRAHAM, JULIA I. VINCENT, DR. FINERMAN AND UNKNOWN JOHN DOE PARTIES, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff previously was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and he has tendered his initial partial filing fee as ordered.

To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(f) and 10(b), the Court finds it appropriate to break the claims in Plaintiff's pro se complaint into numbered counts, as shown below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.

COUNT 1: Against Defendants Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Finerman for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.

COUNT 2: Against Defendants Moore and Meyer for retaliating against him for filing grievances, in violation of his rights under the First Amendment.

COUNT 3: Against Defendants Moore, Meyer, Vincent and Graham for depriving him of due process, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

COUNT 4: Against Defendants Winters and Evans for failing to respond to his grievances.

COUNT 5: Against Defendants Evans and Walker for not providing inmates with an effective method of regaining good conduct credit.

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening.-- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for Dismissal.-- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An 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). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are legally frivolous and thus subject to summary dismissal.

COUNT 1

Plaintiff states that on or about February 18, 2003, he was bitten by a spider while at the Clayton Work Camp. He received medical treatment from Jane Doe 1 in the form of ointment and a bandage. Over the next few days, the bite mark became swollen; Jane Doe 1 again provided him medical treatment. On February 21 a nurse practitioner saw that his wound was swollen and draining; she also provided him with ointment and another bandage. Other symptoms developed, including blisters on various parts of his body. Plaintiff reported this condition to an officer; Plaintiff was then taken from the work camp to the Mt. Sterling Correctional Center. He once again encountered Jane Doe 1, who had him assigned to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.