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.

James R. Henson v. Joni Fisher

March 28, 2011

JAMES R. HENSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JONI FISHER, JEREMY KENNON, EMILY BOWEN, PATRICIA KELLEY, DEFENDANTS.



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

#1611,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate currently in the McHenry County Jail but at all times relevant to this action confined in the Chester Mental Health 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, in pertinent part:

(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.

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). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that the claims in the complaint may be dismissed at this point in the litigation.

Facts:

The following version of the facts is gleaned from Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff suffers from a seizure disorder and takes medications for this and other ailments which interfere with his ability to sleep. On July 2, 2010, Plaintiff made Defendant Fisher aware of his sleep issues and was told that he could receive a new drug for the sleep deprivation. Plaintiff rejected this course of treatment and instead requested that he be moved to a quieter cell house and be placed under seizure watch every 10 minutes, which Defendant Fisher denied. Plaintiff made the same cell movement request of Defendant Kennon, which was also denied.

On July 29, 2010, Plaintiff made this same request of Defendant Bowen, who also denied the request. Defendant Bowen also convinced Plaintiff to continue taking his medication, while stating that at some point soon he would see a doctor about his ailments. It was nearly 3 weeks later when Plaintiff was seen by a doctor.

At some point in the beginning of August, Plaintiff was finally moved to a quieter cell location. On August 23, 2010, Plaintiff requested to be moved to a different cell area, which caused Plaintiff further sleep deprivation. From September 1, 2010 onward, Defendant Bowen has refused to contact a doctor regarding Plaintiff's sleep deprivation.

At undisclosed times Plaintiff wrote grievances to Defendant Kelley complaining about the denials of his requests to change cells. Defendant Kelley neither responded to these ...


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.