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.

Hanks v. Ramos

August 14, 2007

EDWARD HANKS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ANTHONY A. RAMOS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: G. Patrick Murphy Chief United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MURPHY, Chief District Judge

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 Goforth, Mueller, Moore, Murray, Miller, Waller, Vasquez, McDaniels, Ramos, Meek, and Walker for exposing him to excessive levels of environmental tobacco smoke.

COUNT 2: Against Defendant Ravanam for insufficient medical treatment.

COUNT 3: Against unspecified defendants for inadequate facilities in the recreational yard and unhealthy shower procedures.

COUNT 4: Against Defendants Shores, Ramos, Vasquez, and Uchtman for an unjustified disciplinary ticket.

COUNT 5: Against unspecified defendants for interfering with his religious practices. COUNT 6: Against unspecified defendants for limiting his access to the law library and interfering with his mail.

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

Plaintiff states that he suffers from high blood pressure and his condition is exacerbated by exposure to cigarette smoke in or near his cell. He alleges, generically, that he has complained verbally or in writing to Defendants Goforth, Mueller, Moore, Murray, Miller, ...


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.