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.

Brown v. Holloman

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 29, 2016

GEROUND BROWN, No. M47675, Plaintiff
v.
B. HOLLOMAN, R. CHERIM, and SGT. MYERS Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Geround Brown, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights for events that allegedly occurred at Vienna Correctional Center. 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.

         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). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). 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). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross “the line between possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At this juncture, the factual allegations of the 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

         On October 2, 2015, Defendant B. Holloman wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary ticket. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff alleges that the ticket was false. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The ticket states that Plaintiff signed a statement that he had a homemade weapon in his possession that he had made for protection in case he ever needed it. (Doc. 1, p. 19). The disciplinary report further states that Plaintiff admitted that he fabricated the weapon from a piece of plastic with a razorblade and that he used it to threaten another inmate for money. (Doc. 1, p. 19). Plaintiff denies making these statements and alleges that his signature was forged. (Doc. 1, p. 6, 9). He further denies that he ever had a weapon in his possession. (Doc. 1, p. 6).

         Plaintiff had an Adjustment Committee hearing on October 9, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Defendants Cherim and Myers were on the adjustment committee. (Doc. 1, p. 8, 14). Plaintiff alleges that he was not given a copy of the charges prior to the hearing or given the opportunity to have witnesses present. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff was originally sentenced to 6 months C grade, 3 months segregation, 3 months revocation of good conduct credit and a disciplinary transfer. (Doc. 1, p. 15). However, his hearing was remanded on October 13, 2015. This time, Plaintiff received 1 year C grade, 1 year segregation, 1 year revocation of good conduct credit and a disciplinary transfer. (Doc. 1, p. 8, 15). Plaintiff alleges that he was not issued a ticket for the second hearing and that the second hearing did not address any additional information. (Doc. 1, p. 8, 15). Documents submitted in support of his Complaint show that Plaintiff's first sentence was ultimately reinstated after he appealed to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). (Doc. 1, p. 10, 20).

         With the ARB's reduction, Plaintiff should have been released from segregation at Menard on January 2, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Due to a paperwork error, he was not released until February 25, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Plaintiff alleges that while in segregation in Menard, he became aggravated, depressed, stressed, and sad and was deprived of privileges, visiting days and telephone use. (Doc. 1, p. 11). His cell lacked a window to the outside. (Doc. 1, p. 12). He was not permitted to speak to other inmates. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Plaintiff's cell was small, which made it difficult to exercise and the sanitation in the cell was poor. (Doc. 1, p. 12).

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to consolidate the pro se action into one count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders, ...


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.