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.

Triandus Tabb v. Michael Randle

February 10, 2011

TRIANDUS TABB,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL RANDLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Reagan, District Judge

#R-41511,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REAGAN, District Judge:

Plaintiff, Triandus Tabb, an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional Center, 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, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, 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. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

Upon careful review of the complaint, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

The Complaint

Plaintiff Triandus Tabb claims that on January 6, 2010, he was ordered by Defendant Anderton to remove all his clothing, then to dress only in state-issued "blues" and shower shoes. He was not allowed to put on socks, underwear, t-shirt or regular shoes. He was then handcuffed and escorted out of his cell by Defendants Anderton, Wengler, Porter, and John Doe Correctional Officers One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, and Seven, all of whom are members of the "tact team." Despite Plaintiff's lack of resistance, John Doe Defendants Four, Five, Six and Seven pushed and shoved him. The Defendants took Plaintiff outside into the 18-degree temperature for ten to fifteen minutes, then took him into the gymnasium. Inside the gym, Plaintiff was told to stand facing the wall and not to move. He remained in this position for approximately one to two hours. During this time, Plaintiff was not permitted by Defendants Anderton, Bradley, Pickering, Porter, Wangler, and John Does Eight, Nine, and Ten, to use the rest room and he urinated on himself because he could not hold his bladder. Plaintiff also complains that he became light headed and was refused medical treatment by Defendants Anderton, Bradley, Pickering, Porter, Wangler, and John Does Eight, Nine, and Ten. Numerous other inmates were also inside the gym and were denied access to the rest room or medical treatment. Eventually the defendants took Plaintiff back to his cell, again walking the approximate 100 yard distance from the gym to the housing unit, outdoors in the below-freezing temperature. Plaintiff asserts that these actions by the Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs and unsafe conditions.

Plaintiff filed a grievance over this incident, which was denied by Defendant Goetting. His appeal of the decision was denied on May 14, ...


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.