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.

Clay-El v. United States

November 27, 2006

KILEY CLAY-EL, INMATE #R00217, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GOVERNOR ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, MAYOR RICHARD DALEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA MADIGAN, AND ROGER E. WALKER, JR., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Stateville 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.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff originally filed his complaint in the Northern District of Illinois. The action was transferred to this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), and the complaint was filed in this district on October 3, 2005. Plaintiff's original complaint contained essentially one claim regarding a disciplinary action taken against him. Beginning in April 2006, Plaintiff filed a series of documents that the Court construed as attempts to amend the complaint.*fn1 In these documents Plaintiff variously declared his citizenship as a "Moorish American National," sought legal recognition from the United States for all Moorish Americans, detailed the tenets of his religious faith, sought reparations for Moorish Americans enslaved without compensation for over 400 years, sought release from prison, and alleged additional constitutional violations regarding his religious exercise and diet, reading of his mail, inhumane conditions in segregation, his security classification, denial of access to the law library, retaliation by staff, lack of medical care, and placement in a cell with known predators.

On October 3, 2006, the Court entered an order striking each of these attempts to amend the complaint for failure to comply with the federal and local rules governing amendment. The Court granted Plaintiff 30-days leave to file an amended complaint and specified in detail exactly what information Plaintiff needed to include in his amended complaint, including instructions that the amended complaint must contain all claims that Plaintiff wished to pursue against all defendants that could be held liable, and that he must state specifically how each defendant was personally responsible for depriving him of a constitutional right. At the end of that 30-day period, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, but instead filed a motion for summary judgment "for immediate relief of complainant's amended statement of claims" (Doc. 19). The Court denied this motion because the amended statement of claims to which Plaintiff referred had been stricken from the action (Doc. 20). The Court again specifically granted Plaintiff 30-days leave to file one comprehensive amended complaint and again informed Plaintiff that his amended complaint must include all claims against all defendants with specific statements as to how each defendant was personally responsible for depriving him of a constitutional right. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on November 14, 2006 (Doc. 21).

THRESHOLD REVIEW

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the amended complaint (Doc. 21) 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; this action is subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim.

The Court quotes Plaintiff's statement of claims in the amended complaint in its entirety.

Under the section of the complaint entitled "Request for Relief," ...


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.