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.

Thompson v. Reed

July 1, 2010

STANTON J. THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARVIN REED, ET. AL, DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

MERIT REVIEW AND DISMISSAL ORDER

This cause is before the court for merit review of the plaintiff's complaint. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to "screen" the plaintiff's complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it "(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

The pro se plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a confusing array of documents with the clerk of the court on June 10, 2010. The plaintiff used a standardized complaint form provided by the clerk of the court. However, the 44 pages include several copies of the list of defendants which repeat the same names. It appears the plaintiff intends to sue 18 defendants from the Pontiac Correctional Center and Illinois Department of Corrections (herein IDOC).

The filing also includes four separate "statement of claim" sections. The document was filed as one complaint since the plaintiff sent the documents together and numbered the pages in sequence. In addition, the plaintiff provided one motion to proceed in forma pauperis and one motion for appointment of counsel with his complaint. The claims are as follows:

FIRST STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Comp, p. 17)

The plaintiff says from January of 2007 to January of 2008, he has qualified for certain grants from the Illinois Department of Aging. The plaintiff says he has sent in all the required forms, but the department has refused to pay him the $995 dollars he is owed.

The plaintiff has not stated how any of the named defendants have any responsibility for his claims, nor has he stated why he believes he is entitled to the grants. The plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The court notes the plaintiff has a pending case with the exact same allegation against different defendants in Thompson v Circuit Breaker Illinois Department on Aging, et. al, Case No. 10-1172.

SECOND STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Comp, p. 19)

The plaintiff says from August 1, 2008 until May 25, 2010, he has been denied health care. The plaintiff says he has high blood pressure and headaches and suffers in pain. The plaintiff claims it is due to the foul drinking water at Pontiac Correctional Center, but the Wardens and IDOC director will not do anything about it. The plaintiff already has a case pending stating the exact same claim: Thompson v. Lemke, Case No. 10-1173.

THIRD STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Comp, p. 21)

The plaintiff says on December 20, 2009, Officer Small wrote the plaintiff a disciplinary ticket for talking, but he was not the inmate who was at fault. The plaintiff adds a random list of offenses at the end of his complaint including: mental and physical incapacity, corruption, neglect, false reports and violations of his constitutional rights. (Comp, p. 21) The court notes the plaintiff filed the same claim against Defendant Small in Thompson v. Small, Case No. 10-1179. In addition, the remaining list of unspecified allegations does not state a claim.

FOURTH STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Comp, p. 25)

The plaintiff says from the dates of August 1, 2008 to June 8, 2010, the defendants have "done some or if not all of the below allegations." (Comp, p. 25) The plaintiff then goes on to list a variety of offenses numbered 2 through 35 such as " 4) bias 5) prejudice 6) partiality 7) harassment..." (Comp, p. 25) The court notes the plaintiff has already filed a case with this same ...


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.