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.

Christopher Johnson v. Mr. Dismore

July 26, 2011

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MR. DISMORE, UNKNOWN PARTY DIETARY SUPERVISOR, C/O MANTELLO, NURSE SUCHER, LEE RYKER, AND MRS. TAYLOR, DEFENDANTS.



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

#K-6089

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher Johnson, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is serving a fourteen year sentence for burglary, and six years for possession of contraband in a penal institution. 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 and supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.

The Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that on June 12, 2010, he was injured by a foreign object in his food, which turned out to be the flattened metal pour tab from a salt container. At the time of this incident, the prison was on lockdown and food trays were delivered to Plaintiff's cell by Defendant Mantello. Not seeing the object mixed in with his noodles and shredded chicken, Plaintiff discovered it when it cut painfully into his cheek. The pain caused him to swallow the food and metal piece, which lodged in his throat and choked him. Plaintiff was able to cough out the food after a few minutes, but suffered a cut inside his mouth and soreness in his throat.

Plaintiff's cellmate summoned Defendant Mantello, who, after seeing the metal object that choked Plaintiff, took him out of his cell to the control area. Plaintiff explained what had happened to Lt. McCorkle, who then escorted him to the Health Care Unit. Defendant Nurse Sucher saw Plaintiff briefly, and Plaintiff claims he was not able or allowed to explain his problem. Despite being in "extreme pain," Plaintiff was sent back to his housing unit without any pain medicine. Defendant Sucher did not refer him to see a doctor or arrange for any follow up visit.

Plaintiff was unable to eat due to the pain, and was still in this condition when he saw the doctor eleven days later, after the lockdown ended. Plaintiff does not describe what treatment he received at that time or whether he has ...


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.