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.

Hamilton v. Mich

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 15, 2016

DANIEL ROBERT HAMILTON, # B-26391, Plaintiff,
v.
MR. MICH, TODD LOWELL, RYAN BASTEN, RICHARD PHARRELL, KIMBERLY BUTLER, JOHN BALDWIN, BOARD MEMBERS OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and BRUCE RAUNER, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Daniel Robert Hamilton, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the First Amended Complaint[1] 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.

         As is explained in greater detail below, Plaintiff's complaint violates the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For this reason, the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

         The First Amended Complaint

         The allegations in the First Amended Complaint are rambling and often incoherent. Although it is far from clear, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to assert one or more claims relating to the loss of good conduct credit and/or inmate privileges based upon one or more false disciplinary reports written by defendants Richard Pharrell and/or Ryan Basten. Specifically, in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff repeatedly references a “4th bad false report.” At times, the “4th bad false report” appears to reference a disciplinary report written by Basten on June 28, 2016.[2] But the “4th bad false report” is also linked to a report written by a “bad corrections officer” on “July 6, 2016, the summer of this 21st century.” After reviewing the 118 pages of exhibits attached to the First Amended Complaint, the Court was able to locate a record of disciplinary proceedings related to a disciplinary report lodged by an Officer Richard Ferrell on July 6, 2016. The Court can only surmise that Plaintiff's allegations regarding Richard Pharrell[3]relate to Officer Richard Ferrell's July 6, 2016 disciplinary report, the subsequent hearing related to the same, and the resultant loss of good-time credit. (Doc. 8-1, p. 17).

         As to the remaining defendants, the First Amended Complaint is devoid of specific factual allegations. The allegations against these defendants are either non-existent or so minimal that no claims can be extrapolated from them.

         Finally, the First Amended Complaint purports to assert one or more claims against Pharrell for his “deliberate, evil, malicious intent to inflict harm or damages” on Plaintiff. (Doc. 8, p. 7). No specific factual allegations are tied to Pharrell's alleged wrongful conduct. Plaintiff merely states that the alleged conduct gives rise to claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as claims for torture, deliberate indifference, conspiracy to violate civil rights, conspiracy to violate human rights, negligence, and discrimination of the handicapped. Id.

         In connection with the above, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. (Doc. 8, p. 8)

         Legal Standard

         Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and also “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Additionally, Rule 8(d) requires that each allegation within the complaint “must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). The allegations in the complaint must “actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to relief above a speculative level.” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir.2008) (emphasis in original). At the ...


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.