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.

Rice v. Arnett

March 28, 2006

GARY RICE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DARREN L. ARNETT, SGT. WILLIAMS, DAVE E. DYSON, MARK PIERSON, C/O POWER, C/O TAYLOR, MIKE EDWARDS, BRETT A. KLINDWORTH, FEDERICO FERNANDEZ, JULIUS FLAGG, CHRISTINE BROWN, DR. RICE, DR. S. ZUBRAD, DR. GARCIA, NANCY S. TUCKER, C/O SCRO, C/O WERTZ, DOUG H. CRAVENS, AND S. HILE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, Chief District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, currently an inmate in the Shawnee 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.

Rather than making specific factual allegations against Defendants, the complaint presents several claims that are broad legal conclusions. Fortunately, Plaintiff provided the Court with 104 pages of exhibits in support of his complaint that flesh out the following scenario.

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 and other pleadings 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 Arnett, Williams, Power, Dyson, Pierson, Edwards, Taylor, Klindworth, and Fernandez for not providing him with proper due process.

COUNT 2: Against Defendant Williams for threatening and assaulting him.

COUNT 3: Against Defendants Flagg, Brown, Rice, Garcia, Zubrod, and Tucker for thwarting the grievance process.

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

On August 3, 2003, Plaintiff received a disciplinary ticket from Defendant Arnett for intimidation or threats and insolence. Plaintiff was found guilty on the first charge by Defendants Klindworth and Fernandez; he was punished with three months in segregation, a three month demotion to C-grade, and the revocation of three months of good conduct credit. On August 5, 2003, Plaintiff received a disciplinary ticket from Defendant Dyson for making threats. He was found guilty by Defendants Klindworth and Fernandez; he was punished with three months in segregation, a three month demotion to C-grade, loss of contact visits for six months, and the revocation of three months of good conduct credit. In each instance, these punishments were approved by Defendant Pierson.*fn1 With ...


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.