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.

Ronald Guidry v. Illinois Department of Corrections

April 27, 2011

RONALD GUIDRY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

#R-58604,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate currently in the Menard Correctional Center, was at all times relevant to this action housed in the Shawnee Correctional Center. Plaintiff brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is 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.

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). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that some, but not all, of the claims in the complaint must be dismissed at this point in the litigation.

FACTS ALLEGED IN AMENDED COMPLAINT

On August 29, 2010, Plaintiff was worshiping in his cell when Defendant Pender approached and began harassing Plaintiff about his religion. After a heated discussion, Defendant Pender shoved Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to fall and injure his head and back. Plaintiff requested medical attention, but this request was denied.*fn1 Later that evening, Plaintiff submitted a grievance regarding the incident.

On September 1, 2010, Plaintiff was told to pack up, and he was taken to segregation. When he asked why he was being placed in segregation, he was told that Defendant Martin had ordered the move, even though Plaintiff received no disciplinary hearing. Once Plaintiff arrived in segregation, Defendant Pender took Plaintiff's property, destroyed items, and confiscated pictures and unrelated grievances while telling Plaintiff that he "should have just left it alone," referring to the grievance Plaintiff had written about Defendant Pender. Later that evening, a nurse gave Plaintiff pain pills and an ice pack for the injuries he sustained earlier.

Plaintiff was in segregation during the religious period of Ramadan, so that his food trays arrived twice a day: before sunrise and after sunset. Because Plaintiff was the only inmate in segregation participating in Ramadan, he was the only inmate who received his food trays at these times. Often, Plaintiff would receive food that had been "tampered with" and "digged over."

At some unspecified time later, Defendant Rightnower came to Plaintiff's cell and boasted about burning his holy book, which provoked a verbal altercation. Plaintiff later began writing out a grievance relating to this argument and left it on his desk while he was called away from his cell. When he returned, the grievance and other legal documents were gone.

On September 18, 2010, Plaintiff was issued numerous false tickets. Plaintiff attended a disciplinary hearing and was found guilty of the charges, though his witnesses were never called. Plaintiff's status was changed to segregation, though he had been held in segregation since September 1st. Plaintiff never received a statement detailing the reasons why the board found him guilty. Defendant Vaughn was a member of the board who allegedly influenced the other members to find Plaintiff guilty.

Plaintiff returned to a new segregation cell and was subjected to cold temperatures. The next day, medical staff was called because Plaintiff's core body temperature was low and he was vomiting. Plaintiff was moved to a new cell but was denied food, and pieces of his mail were confiscated. Defendant ...


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.