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.

Wainwright v. Hulick

February 5, 2007

ANTOINE WAINWRIGHT, INMATE #N20490, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DONALD HULICK, ALAN UCHTMAN, MAJOR WINE, S.P. FURLOW, MAJOR REDNOW, MAJOR INMAN, LT. KORANDO, LAWRENCE KANIA, TERRY HASEMEYER, JASON VASQUEZ, ALLEN MARTIN, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a former inmate in the Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides, in pertinent part:

(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 that none of the claims in the complaint may be dismissed at this point in the litigation.

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 Inman, Korando, Wine, Rednow, Kania, Furlow, Vasquez, Hasemeyer, and Uchtman for unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff for prior lawsuits.

COUNT 2: Against Defendants Inman, Korando, Wine, Rednow, Kania, Furlow, Vasquez, Hasemeyer, and Uchtman for violations of the equal protection clause.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Based on Plaintiff's statement of facts and the exhibits submitted the complaint, the Court has gleaned the following. On January 30, 2006, Defendant Kania wrote a disciplinary report charging Plaintiff with fighting. In a subsequent disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff pleaded not guilty, but Defendants Hasemeyer and Vasquez found him guilty of the charges and disciplined him with six months in segregation, a six-month demotion to c-grade, and a six-month commissary restriction. Defendant Uchtman affirmed the disciplinary measures.

Plaintiff grieved the finding of guilt, arguing that although he was present at the fight between two other inmates, he was not involved in it. On March 9, 2006, Grievance Officer Tyrone Murray affirmed Plaintiff's grievance, and recommended that the disciplinary report against him be expunged. Defendant Uchtman affirmed the ...


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.