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. Marion County Sheriff's Dep't

February 18, 2010

TANAKA BIRDO, #S-03217 PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert U. S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GILBERT, District Judge

Plaintiff Tanaka Birdo, formerly an detainee in the Marion County Jail, 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; this action is [portions of this action are] subject to summary dismissal.

THE COMPLAINT

Birdo alleges, generally, that at Marion County jail, federal inmates housed at the jail are given preferential treatment over those detained by County authorities. As an example, he explains that some federal inmates have received equivalent disciplinary sanctions for actions that Birdo deems more serious than conduct for which he was punished. He complained to Defendants Roeckeman and Eddings about his concerns over this disparity, without result.

Birdo also alleges that federal and county inmates are housed together, and federal inmates tend to prey on the county inmates with harassment, intimidation, and occasional assaults. He specifically alleges that on June 27, 2009, he was assaulted by two federal inmates. Birdo alleges that Defendant Farthee was in the control room but did not see the assault. Afterwards, Birdo had a swollen jaw and was spitting blood. He asked Defendant Burgess to look at his jaw. Burgess did, told Birdo he did not think it was broken; Burgess then told him that the doctor, Defendant Junidi, advised him to give Birdo an ice pack for his jaw and some pain medication.

The next day, June 28, Junidi examined Birdo and ordered an x-ray, which was taken at the hospital later that day. The x-ray revealed a broken jaw. On June 30, Birdo was taken to Effingham to see another doctor, who took more detailed x-rays. The next day, July 1, Birdo underwent surgery to repair his broken jaw; a permanent plate was inserted into his jaw, and his jaw was wired together while the injury healed. For several weeks, Birdo was on a liquid diet, resulting in 15 pounds of weight loss.

Birdo alleges that the sheriff and the jail administrator, Defendants Devore and Roeckeman, never tour the jail. He further alleges that the sergeants rarely tour the jail; instead, they tend to congregate in the control room where they do not vigilantly watch the television monitors of day room activity. ...


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.