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.

Malone v. Hill

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 26, 2016

WILLIAM A. MALONE, Plaintiff,
v.
HILL, BOWERMAN, and UNKNOWN PARTY Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff William A. Malone, an inmate in Pickneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests monetary damages. (Doc. 2-2, p. 15). 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 any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff's claims were originally filed in Case No. 16-cv-200-SMY. On August 29, 2016, that case underwent threshold review, and the Court determined that many of Plaintiff's claims failed to share a common nucleus of facts or parties. (Doc. 1). The Court therefore severed that case into multiple actions, including this one. (Doc. 1).

         Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that on January 14, 2014, Hill witnessed $250 of Plaintiff's property being stolen. (Doc. 2, p. 13). Approximately one week later on January 21, 2014, Bowerman confiscated three bottles of washing detergent from Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, p. 13). On March 22, 2014 and again on June 11, 2014 the prison administration violated a court order and confiscated indigent funds from Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, p. 13). Finally, Plaintiff somewhat confusingly alleges that on June 12, 2014, the inmate commissary had overcharged him by 7% over three and a half years. (Doc. 2, p. 13).

         Discussion

         Previously, the Court divided Plaintiff's claims in 16-cv-200 into multiple counts.

         That Order specifically split Count 3 into this case. As previously ...


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.