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.

Westt v. Migneron

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 31, 2016

KENTES WEST, Plaintiff,
v.
MIGNERON, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL United States 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. Plaintiff requests monetary relief. (Doc. 2, p. 37-38). 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 originally filed this suit in Case No. 16-cv-414-SMY on April 11, 2016. On August 29, 2016, that Complaint underwent screening pursuant to § 1915A, at which time certain claims were severed into distinct actions for failure to state related claims. Plaintiff's claim against Migneron was severed into this action.

         As it relates to this claim, Plaintiff has alleged: “still being harassed I had a call pass for psych health care and clothing room. C/O Migneron wouldn't allow me to go on call passes.” (Doc. 2, p. 36). He then states that mental health professional Myeres came to his door. (Doc. 2, p. 36). That is the extent of the allegations in the Complaint relevant to this claim. Plaintiff's exhibits show that he had a call pass for lost laundry clothing exchanged dated February 19, 2016, which appears not to have been executed. (Doc. 2-2, p. 45).

         Discussion

         The Court's previous Order divided up Plaintiff's Complaint into separate Counts. (Doc. 1). Count 17 was split into this action:

         Count 17: Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference Claim against Defendant Migneron for refusing to allow Plaintiff to leave his cell on ...


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.