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.

Freddie Ross, Jr., #80002 v. Captain Bunt

February 27, 2012

FREDDIE ROSS, JR., #80002, SCOTT MOORE, #76466, AND CHRISTOPHER WILSON, #44084, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CAPTAIN BUNT, AND SHERIFF HERTZ, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Freddie Ross, Jr., Scott Moore and Christopher Wilson, detainees in Madison County jail, bring this action for deprivations of their 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, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), 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; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

The Complaint

Plaintiffs' complaint names Captain Bunt, a sheriff employed at Madison County Jail, and Robert Hertz, the Sheriff of Madison County, as defendants. Plaintiffs iterate several general conditions at Madison County Jail that they assert are constitutional violations. These include, as listed by Plaintiffs: food quality and control, quartermaster protocol, cell conditions - inadequate drinking water, cell conditions - insufficient cleaning supplies, recreation and leisure time, cell condition - cold indoor temperatures. Plaintiff Ross submitted complaints to the Illinois Department of Corrections ('IDOC") concerning these issues on April 15, 2011. An IDOC specialist visited Madison County jail within ten days and responded to Plaintiff Ross's particular complaints by written response on May 20, 2011. Plaintiffs claim that complaints to IDOC were improperly denied due to lack of investigation.

Plaintiffs request as relief that IDOC and Madison County jail discontinue unconstitutional practices and establish new policies for third party investigations of IDOC as well as correct all ...


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.