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.

Birdo v. Wolenhaupt

July 30, 2009

TANAKA BIRDO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRAD WOLENHAUPT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate, 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). 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). A complaint is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___, 2009 WL 1361536, *13 (May 18, 2009).

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that on May 28, 2007, while confined at the Marion County Law Enforcement Center (Jail), he was taken off of "suicide watch" by Defendant Demijian without being seen by a psychiatrist or psychologist. Plaintiff states that he was assigned to a cell on "A Walk." Later that day while coming back from the gym, Plaintiff, who is black, had a run in with a white prisoner named Shanafelt. It appears that Plaintiff and Shanafelt had previous confrontations. Plaintiff contends, though, that the Jail staff favors white inmates over black inmates and, therefore, Defendant Calhoun suspended Plaintiff from the gym, but imposed no sanctions on Shanafelt. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that Calhoun - along with Defendants Fischer, Woods, and Gray - beat and assaulted him. Plaintiff further claims that he suffered injuries from this attack, but that Defendant Unknown Nurse failed to provide him any medical treatment or assistance for his injuries.

Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide Plaintiff's pro se action into xxx 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: Against Defendant Demanjian for taking him off suicide watch in violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

COUNT 2: Against Defendants Calhoun, Fischer, Woods, and Gray for using excessive force against him in violation of Due Process.

COUNT 3: Against Defendant Unknown Nurse for denying Plaintiff adequate medical care for his injuries in violation of Due Process.

DISCUSSION

A. ...


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.