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.

Richard Tyson, # N-61560 v. Gladyse Taylor

July 9, 2012

RICHARD TYSON, # N-61560, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GLADYSE TAYLOR, SARAH JOHNSON, AND GLENN HOWARD, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Richard Tyson, a former inmate in Vienna and Pontiac Correctional Centers, 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:

(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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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 it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.

The Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of six months' good-conduct-time credit and spent six months in solitary confinement due to Defendant Howard's failure to provide him with a "full and complete [disciplinary] hearing." On December 11, 2010, Plaintiff allegedly assaulted a fellow inmate while incarcerated at Vienna. Plaintiff claimed he assaulted Inmate Joslin, while three witnesses reported that Plaintiff assaulted Inmate Carlson. After an investigation, it was found that Inmate Joslin was not housed at Vienna on December 11, 2010.

On December 22, 2010, the IDOC Adjustment Committee, chaired by Defendant Howard, held a hearing during which Plaintiff had one year's good conduct credit revoked and was moved to segregation for one year. Plaintiff takes issue with this hearing for two reasons: (a) he was not allowed to call Inmate Zigler as a witness, and (b) Defendant Howard was not fair and impartial because "he served as one of the complaining Lieutenants on the Summary Report." Plaintiff's punishment was later reduced by Defendants Johnson and Taylor to revocation of six months' good-conduct credit and six months' segregation based on a grievance Plaintiff filed.

In an attachment to his complaint, Plaintiff also expresses concerns about various conditions of his segregation (rust-colored water, heating system failure, inadequate ventilation, etc.). Plaintiff requests compensatory damages for violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Discussion

Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into two (2) counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The ...


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.