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.

Carter v. Walker

December 3, 2007

KEVEN CARTER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROGER A. WALKER, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, 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. In this action, Plaintiff seeks damages for allegedly unlawful actions taken in connection with two conduct violations and for injuries he sustained when he was attacked by another inmate. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 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). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 ( 2007). 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.

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff claims that while confined at the Big Muddy Correctional Center, he was denied due process of law in connection with two disciplinary actions taken against him. In the first disciplinary action, Plaintiff was charged with and found guilty of giving false information after Plaintiff reported that Defendant Serles hit him in the mouth. As a result, Plaintiff was placed on segregation for three months, placed on "Grade C" for three months, lost three months of good time credit, was denied yard time for one month, and was recommended for disciplinary transfer. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied the opprotunity to present a defense to this charge and that the disciplinary hearing was biased against him.

In the second disciplinary action, Plaintiff was charged with and found guilty of giving false information after filing a grievance stating that Defendant Brown threatened Plaintiff while Plaintiff was handcuffed. As a sanction, Plaintiff was placed on "Grade C" for two months. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied the opportunity to present a defense and denied the opportunity to take a polygraph with regard to this disciplinary action.

Plaintiff further alleges he had been placed in a cell with inmate Glass. Plaintiff requested to be moved to a different cell. Glass then threatened Plaintiff with bodily harm and Glass asked Sergeant Abbott to move Plaintiff to a different cell. Abbott allegedly told Glass "do whatever is necessary." Thereafter, Glass allegedly attacked and beat Plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges that Glass used excessive force against him after this attack. Plaintiff states that he was denied medical treatment for the injuries he sustained during the attack until July 15, 2006.

DISCUSSION

At the outset, the Court must address the recent decision in George v. Smith, No. 07-1325, 2007 WL 3307028 (7th Cir. Nov. 9, 2007). In George, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals directed district courts to scrutinize pro se prisoner complaints which assert multiple claims against multiple defendants for compliance with ...


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.