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.

Boucher v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections

December 18, 2006

STEVEN BOUCHER, INMATE #K78439, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SCOTT M. DEMPSEY, EDWIN BOWEN, TERRY MCCANN, BILLY GROANING, RONALD MCGILL, LEANN PATE, ROGER E. WALKER, JACKIE MILLER, LIEUTENANT SANDERS, C/O ADAMSON, SERGEANT DAVORAK, HEALTH PROFESSIONALS LIMITED, AND C/O STONE, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a former inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, 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 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 Defendant Bowen for unconstitutional retaliation.

COUNT 2: Against unspecified defendants for denying Plaintiff access to the courts.

COUNT 3: Against unspecified defendants for denying Plaintiff exercise outside of his cell.

COUNT 4: Against unspecified defendants for denying Plaintiff showers while on a hunger strike.

COUNT 5: Against unspecified defendants for unconstitutional retaliation.

COUNT 6: Against unspecified defendants for due process violations in a disciplinary hearing.

COUNT 7: Against unspecified defendants for delaying delivery of Plaintiff's legal mail.

COUNT 8: Against unspecified defendants for denying Plaintiff hygiene products.

COUNT 9: Against unspecified defendants for depriving Plaintiff of his personal property.

COUNT 10: Against unspecified defendants for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs.

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 subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim.

COUNT 1

Plaintiff states that in retaliation for reporting on a "Captain Huges" for sexually assaulting three other inmates and for assisting those inmates in filing federal civil rights complaints, he was charged with "various minor infractions" by unspecified officials at Centralia Correctional Center. He was found guilty of these infractions and disciplined with two-months segregation, two-months lost good conduct credit, a two-month demotion to c-grade, and a disciplinary transfer to a higher security institution. Defendant Bowen participated in adjudicating the disciplinary hearing.

Prison officials may not retaliate against inmates for filing grievances or otherwise complaining about their conditions of confinement. See, e.g., Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2002); DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000); Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 1996); Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, "[a]ll that need be specified is the bare minimum facts necessary to put the defendant on notice of the claim so that he can file an answer." Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 ...


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.