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.

Hunter v. Justus

January 17, 2008

JASON P. HUNTER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MEARL J. JUSTUS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Clinton County Jail, 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 conditions of confinement at the St. Clair County Jail ("Jail"), denial of due process of law, and failure to adequately protect him from attack by another prisoner. 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's complaint asserts three separate claims. First, Plaintiff alleges that on August 6, 2007, he attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on prescribed sleeping pills. As a result of his suicide attempt, plaintiff was stripped naked and place in the male "quiet cell" with only a mat to sleep on. Plaintiff asserts that the toilet in the male "quiet cell" was out of order and that the cell lacked both hot water and soap. Plaintiff states that on August 8, 2007, he was moved from the male "quiet cell" to the female "quiet cell." Plaintiff alleges that the female "quiet cell" also lacked hot water and soap. Plaintiff states that on August 9, 2007, he was moved back to the male "quiet cell" where he remained until August 13, 2007. Plaintiff alleges that during the time he was confined in the "quiet cells," the cells were swept and mopped only once in violation of Jail policy stating that cells would be swept and mopped each day. Liberally construing the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff claims that the conditions in the "quiet cells" violated his constitutional rights.

Second, Plaintiff alleges that every time he wrote a complaint he did not receive a reply. Plaintiff alleges that the failure to respond to his complaints violated due process of law.

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that on July 22, 2007, he was involved in a fight with Ron Lott, a fellow prisoner. During this fight, Plaintiff asserts that he was cut with a razor. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital where he received stitches for this injury. Plaintiff contends that razors are handed out daily to inmates whose names are recorded. Plaintiff further contends that the distributed razors are to be collected every morning. Plaintiff alleges that a search of the Jail after the fight yielded twenty-one razors. Plaintiff claims that he was injured due to the negligence of prison staff in distributing and collecting the razors.

DISPOSITION

At the outset, the Court doubts that the Jail - being a physical facility -is an entity subject to suit under § 1983, although St. Clair County, the political entity that operates the Jail, certainly is. Even if the Jail was a proper defendant, it is not automatically liable under § 1983 for the wrongdoing of its employees. To the contrary, it is well settled that political entities like the Jail -including St. Clair County and the City of Belleville - may not be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of its employees, unless the employee acted pursuant to a policy or custom. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff's complaint contains no allegation that any of the alleged actions were taken pursuant ...


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.