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.

Dupree v. Maue

March 10, 2009

CEDRIC DUPREE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MAJOR MAUE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for alleged violations of numerous constitutional rights. 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). 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 the supporting exhibits, the Court finds that no claim in the original complaint may dismissed at this point in the litigation.

THE COMPLAINT

Although Plaintiff has divided his complaint into 7 counts, the Court finds it convenient to reorganize Plaintiff's allegations and to divide this action into 13 counts. 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. Plaintiff alleges that his complaint "details a campaign [of constitutional violations and harassment] that the defendants embarked on for the sole purpose of having [him] drop [his] litigation against prison staff." Liberally construing the complaint and attached exhibits, it appears that Plaintiff brought a successful § 1983 action against prison staff at the Pontiac Correctional Center (PCC). Plaintiff claims that each of the acts described in Counts 2 through 13 (below) was undertaken in retaliation for Plaintiff's suit against PCC staff members.

Counts 2 through 11 concern Plaintiff's confinement in the Administrative Segregation Unit at Menard Correctional Center (MCC) from September 13, 2006, to October 5, 2006.

Count 2. Plaintiff alleges that on September 19, 2006, Defendant Maue threatened and cursed at him. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Maue also ordered his staff to "take [his] mattress and pillow and to throw away [Plaintiff's] property away." Plaintiff claims that he suffered "mental and emotional anguish" as a result of Defendant Maue's actions. Liberally construing these allegations, it appears that Plaintiff claims that Defendant Maue violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and Due Process.

Count 3. Plaintiff alleges that on September 19, 2006, Defendant Fritz - acting pursuant to Defendant Maue's instructions - "took [his] mattress and pillow and threw away all [his] property." Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Fritz cursed at him, slapped him in the face, and stomped on his toes "maliciously to intentionally cause [Plaintiff] harm." Liberally construing the complaint, it appears Plaintiff claims Defendant Fritz violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause.

Count 4. Plaintiff alleges that on September 19, 2006, he had a panic attack and started cutting his wrists. Plaintiff claims that an "unknown psychologist" refused to place Plaintiff on suicide watch and that a Defendant identified only as "Nurse Jack" told Plaintiff to cut himself deeper and showed Plaintiff "how to properly slice [his] wrist." Plaintiff alleges that these actions violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

Count 5. Plaintiff alleges that on a date between September 13, 2006, and October 5, 2006, Defendants Beig and Harper placed him on suicide watch, took his clothing away, placed him in a room that was "about 42E," and injected him with "psychotropic medication" against his will and in contravention of his religious beliefs. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Beig and Harper allowed Plaintiff to cut himself and allowed Plaintiff to eat his feces for "many days" by refusing to place Plaintiff in restraints. Liberally construing the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff asserts violations of his statutory rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-1, et seq., his constitutional right to freely exercise his religion, his Due Process right not to be forcibly injected with psychotropic medication, and his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical treatment.

Count 6. Plaintiff asserts that his Administrative Segregation cell had "encrusted feces," "blood on the walls," and a strong smell of urine. Plaintiff further contends that he was not provided any cleaning supplies and that he was denied toothbrush for 9 days. Liberally construing the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that these conditions violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

Count 7. Plaintiff alleges that the "Prison of Menard stole [his] beard trimmers." Liberally construing this allegation, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to assert a Due Process claim based on the loss of his personal property.

Count 8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Vasquez refused to feed him on two occasions (September 11, 2006, and October 5, 2006). It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to assert an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Vasquez.

Count 9. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Vasquez and another "unknown corrections officer" refused to give him toilet paper on two occasions (September 16, 2006, and September 19, 2006) leaving Plaintiff only his hands with which to wipe himself. It appears Plaintiff is attempting to assert an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Vasquez and the "unknown corrections officer."

Count 10. Plaintiff asserts that he was not allowed to go to the law library while confined in the Administrative Segregation Unit. Liberally construing the complaint it appears that Plaintiff is also attempting to assert an access to the courts claim.

Count 11. Plaintiff alleges that the "Prison of Menard" would not allow group religious worship. Liberally construing the complaint, it appears Plaintiff claims that the failure to provide him with access to group religious services violates his federal statutory rights under RLUIPA ...


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.