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.

Munson v. Hulick

July 7, 2010

JAMES MUNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DONALD HULICK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment 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, 590 U.S. 544, 570 (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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true, some factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts "should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements." Id. At the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that he has been confined in the North I building at Menard Correctional Center since 2006. Plaintiff alleges that the conditions in the North I building - either alone or in combination - violate the Eighth Amendment's guarantee that no person shall be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. In support of his claim, Plaintiff asserts the following "laundry list" of conditions in the North I building: (1) inadequate cell size (40 square feet total in cell; 2 men to a cell) and confinement in said cells for approximately 21 to 22 hours per day; (2) lack of exercise; (3) inadequate lighting; (4) peeling paint (possibly containing led) that sometimes gets into his food; (5) inadequate ventilation (cell temperatures reaching 115 to 120 degrees);*fn1 (6) inadequate cleaning supplies for the cells; (7) inadequate personal hygiene items for prisoners; (8) exposure to mold; and (9) exposure to possible asbestos fibers.

Plaintiff asserts that do to these conditions he has suffered the following physical problems:

(1) pain (both overall and, specifically, in his lower back) from lack of exercise and inability to sit upright in his cell (except on the toilet which then causes numbness) and aggravation of an existing "neuroanatomy" medical condition; (2) loss of muscle strength; (3) sinus problems (sneezing, etc.); (4) eye pain and deteriorating eye sight; and (5) mental stress.

Plaintiff asserts that the named Defendants were actually aware of the conditions in North

I building from the grievances that he has filed and from grievances filed by other inmates confined in the North I building. Plaintiff contends, however, that the named Defendants have been deliberately ...


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.