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.

Compton v. Baldwin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 7, 2016

DARNELL COMPTON, #M-42597, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BALDWIN, SUZANN BAILEY, GODINES, SWANSON, and BETSY SPILLER, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Darnell Compton, an inmate currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center ("Pinckneyville"), brings this pro se action for alleged violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to violate his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by serving him a soy-based diet and forcing him to spend money at the commissary. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

         This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is required to dismiss any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff entered the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") on April 29, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He started eating a soy-based diet at that time and alleges that he immediately began to suffer from "severe" medical injuries. (Doc. 1, p. 5).

         On or about October 4, 2015, Plaintiff suffered from severe constipation that lasted approximately 14 days. (Doc. 1, p. 5). As a result of the constipation, Plaintiff tore his anus. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff filed a medical request slip, but it was allegedly ignored. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He then filed a grievance on November 11, 2015, which also went ignored. (Doc. 1, p. 5). A duplicate grievance filed in December 2015 got the same results and in January 2016, the director refused to answer. (Doc. 1, p. 5).

         Plaintiff then began experiencing severe stomach pains, headaches, gas, fatigue, loss of circulation and bouts of constipation that last between 7 and 12 days. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Defendants Baldwin and Godinez never responded to Plaintiffs grievances regarding his colplaints about his diet. He spoke with Spiller in person in December 2015 and she allegedly told him to spend more money in the commissary if he did not want to eat the soy. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants serve soy because it's cheaper. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff also wrote two letters to Defendant Bailey, but she did not respond. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He requested a soy-free diet, but has not received a response. (Doc. 1, p. 6)

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se Complaint into the following enumerated claims. 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 designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion regarding their merit.

Count 1:Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for endangering Plaintiffs health by serving him a soy diet;
Count 2:Conspiracy claim against Defendants for the soy diet; and,
Count 3:Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for failing to respond to grievances regarding the soy diet.

         All three claims shall be dismissed at this time.

         Coun ...


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.