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.

Randle v. Vitale

February 9, 2010

ANWAR RANDLE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RON VITALE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Anwar Randle, formerly an inmate in the Centralia and Southwestern Illinois Correctional Centesr, brings 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). 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 subject to summary dismissal, while other portions must be severed into separate lawsuits.

THE COMPLAINT

In May 2008, while at the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center, Randle was subjected to physical torment by the tactical team. Specifically, Randle was required to site in a restrictive restraint position for several hours, which caused injuries to his neck and back. That incident is the subject of a prior lawsuit pending before this Court, and thus is not at issue in this action. See Randle v. xxxx, Case No. 08-cv-856-DRH (S.D. Ill., filed ddddd). After that incident, while still at Southwestern, Randle received medical treatment as well as counseling for his injuries. In January 2009, Randle was transferred to Centralia. At Centralia he was assigned to bunks with spring supports, and he quickly began to experience back pain. He saw Defendant Santos, who prescribed pain medication but denied Randle's request for a flat bunk or a board to place under his mattress.

While still at Southwestern, Randle was exposed to multiple individuals who were infected with communicable diseases, such as scabies, hepatitis, and staph infections. In late 2008, shortly before his transfer to Centralia, Randle contracted some form of skin condition that manifested itself as painful, itching inflammation and rashes. Randle believes that officials at Southwestern, including Defendant Shah, did not take appropriate action to prevent the spread of these infectious conditions. He also alleges that at Centralia, Defendant Santos did not provide adequate medical treatment for this condition.

While still at Southwestern, Randle received a disciplinary ticket on December 22, 2008, for possession or solicitation of unauthorized personal information. At the hearing on December 31, 2008, conducted by Defendants Morrison and Holtmann, Randle was found guilty and punished with three months' reduction to B-grade and 28 days of commissary restriction. Later, the reduction in grade was changed to C-grade. Because C-grade inmates are not housed at Southwestern, Randle was transferred to Centralia. Randle believes that this disciplinary proceeding was concocted in retaliation for the first lawsuit he filed in this District.

In addition to these three claims, each of which is presented in a separate count, Randle adds in two more claims in which he challenges administrative policies regarding good conduct credit and mandatory supervised release. Each of the five counts will now be examined.

COUNT 1

Randle's first claim is that Defendants Shah and Santos acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs with respect to his injuries ...


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.