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.

West v. Eoavaldi

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 31, 2016

KENTES WEST, Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK EOAVALDI, MAJOR PAIGE, and UNKNOWN PARTY Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Kentes West, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, 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.

         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.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff originally filed this suit on April 11, 2016 in case No. 16-cv-414-SMY. That case underwent § 1915A screening on August 29, 2016, at which time it was determined that Plaintiff had stated unrelated claims and the present action was severed out of Plaintiff's other claims. (Doc. 1).

         As related to the claims present in this case, Plaintiff has alleged that on July 30, 2015, C/O Rakers decided not to feed Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, p. 30). He tried to give Plaintiff an empty tray, but “due to the fan on the wall being blowing on the tray” Plaintiff knew something was not right with about the tray, and told Rakers so. (Doc. 2, p. 30). Rakers opted not to give Plaintiff the tray. (Doc. 2, p. 30). Plaintiff asked C/O Cutts to look at the tray when he walked past and Cutts allegedly told Plaintiff the tray was empty. (Doc. 2, p. 30). Plaintiff then tried to complain to Sgt. Harris, who told him to talk to his gallery officer about it. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Plaintiff alleges that his gallery officer refused to give him showers in the past and had previously threatened him. (Doc. 2, p. 31). So Plaintiff asked to speak to a Lieutenant. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Plaintiff waited a while, but he still did not get a tray and a Lieutenant never came by. (Doc. 2, p. 31). So Plaintiff flooded his cell. (Doc. 2, p. 31).

         When guards responded to the flooding, they declined to address Plaintiff's complaints about not getting a tray or Rakers mistreating Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Lt. Eoavaldi told Plaintiff that he “was going to get it today” because Eoavaldi was tired of hearing his name. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Plaintiff refused to cuff up when Eoavaldi ordered him to because he believed that Eoavaldi would beat him. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Eoavaldi called Major Paige to the scene, but Plaintiff would not cuff up for him either because he was even angrier than Eoavaldi. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Eoavaldi and Paige wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary report and called Orange Crush to Plaintiff's cell. (Doc. 2, p. 31).

         Plaintiff complied with Orange Crush's orders because he believed that Orange Crush would not hurt him because they filmed the cell extraction. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Despite his compliance, Plaintiff was pepper sprayed, thrown to the ground, had his head forced into the toilet, his hair pulled, and his genitals were rubbed with pepper spray. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Plaintiff's clothes and Nike gym shoes were thrown in the trash. (Doc. 2, p. 31). He was placed in a cell with no water, no working toilet, no ...


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.