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.

Glick v. Walker

July 27, 2007

DENNIS P. GLICK, INMATE #R42175, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROGER E. WALKER, JR., ALAN UCHTMAN, MELODY J. FORD, TYONE MURRAY, JAMES ALMS, PAM GRUBMAN, AND JOHN DOE, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an 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:

(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.

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 filings 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 unspecified defendants for unconstitutional retaliation for filing grievances.

COUNT 2: Against unspecified defendants for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights, specifically his serious medical needs and a pervasive risk of harm.

COUNT 3: Against unspecified defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff states the following facts. On May 6, 2005, Plaintiff was diagnosed by Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) psychiatrist Amin (not a defendant) with a mental illness. Dr. Amin ordered medication and group therapy. On May 11, 2005, Plaintiff wrote a grievance to Counselor Junge (not a defendant), regarding an unspecified violation of the Interstate Corrections Compact. He sent a copy to Defendant Walker, who received it on May 23, 2005. On February 6, 2006, Edward McNeil (not a defendant) of the Transfer Coordinator's Office denied Plaintiff the prescribed group therapy due to his "E-level" status. On February 8, 2006, Plaintiff mailed a document entitled "Second Proposal for Relief" to Defendant Walker. The document informed Defendant Walker that Plaintiff had exhausted his remedies regarding the above-noted grievance and requested that Defendant Walker lower Plaintiff's classification from E-status so that he could attend the group therapy.

On April 25, 2006, Plaintiff was transferred from Menard Correctional Center to Stateville Correctional Center. Plaintiff was not given a hearing regarding the transfer. On May 8, 2006, Plaintiff was "subjected to a disciplinary." On May 19, 2006, ...


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.