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.

Michael Hall v. Mr. Thomas

March 11, 2011

MICHAEL HALL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MR. THOMAS, SGT. PICKLER, C/O REYNOLDS AND SGT BEST, DEFENDANTS.



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

#B-40832,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Michael Hall, an inmate in the Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising out of an incident that occurred while Plaintiff was housed in the Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff is serving an 18-year sentence for home invasion. 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 that none of the claims in the complaint may be dismissed at this point in the litigation.

The Complaint

Plaintiff claims that on May 26, 2010, he was taken to internal affairs, where Defendant Thomas warned him about cursing or making threats against correctional officers. Plaintiff did not receive a disciplinary ticket. Plaintiff then contends that Defendant Thomas, along with Defendants Pickler and Reynolds, conspired to punish Plaintiff by placing him in a cell that lacked adequate ventilation, had a sewage backup, was excessively hot (over 100 degrees), and had peeling paint that fell into Plaintiff's food and onto his face. Plaintiff spent 28 days in this cell, despite his repeated pleas to Defendant Best to move him to a different cell. Defendant Best refused to move Plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims he filed a grievance over the inadequate cell conditions, but that it was ...


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.