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.

Maurice Wallace, No. R10764 v. Gladyse C. Taylor

May 7, 2012

MAURICE WALLACE, NO. R10764, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GLADYSE C. TAYLOR, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Wallace, an inmate at Tamms Correctional Center ("Tamms"), brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is serving a life sentence for murder and a twenty-five year sentence for attempted murder of a corrections officer. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of Plaintiff's operative 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 any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that a portion of the claims in the complaint are subject to dismissal at this point in the litigation.

The Complaint

For purposes of this § 1915A screening, the Plaintiff's operative complaint is his amended complaint (Doc. 16), and the exhibits thereto (Doc. 17). Plaintiff's subsequently filed Claim for Relief and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 19) and exhibits thereto (Doc. 20-22) are premature, have not been reviewed, and will be stricken. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8, 34.

Plaintiff is currently a party in two pending civil matters in this District. Additionally, Plaintiff states that during his incarceration he has filed numerous grievances with Tamms, the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") as well as other government entities. Plaintiff claims that Defendants Taylor, Bartley, Johnson, Godinez and Mason have, during the pendency of these civil suits and grievances, subjected Plaintiff to conditions violative of his rights as punishment for his participation in constitutionally protected activity.

Specifically, Plaintiff claims that on December 13, 2010, Defendant Taylor, Director of IDOC, through her subordinate proxy, denied Plaintiff the right to be removed from indeterminate segregation.

Plaintiff additionally claims that Defendants Bartley and Johnson, chief administrative officer, and former Warden of Tamms, respectively, approved his placement in a segregated housing unit ("SHU") from July 1, 2008 through January, 2010. As to Johnson, Plaintiff also claims that that she deprived him of magazines, newspapers and haircuts from October 2010 to February 2011.

Plaintiff claims that on August 2, 2011, Defendant Godinez, through his proxies, refused him the right ...


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.