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.

Wilson v. Wright

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

January 10, 2017

COREY B. WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT WRIGHT, and PHILLIP MCLAURIN Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          MICHAEL J. REAGAN, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Corey Wilson, an inmate in Western Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that allegedly occurred while he was incarcerated in St. Clair County Jail. Plaintiff 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, 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; portions of this Complaint are subject to dismissal.

         The Complaint

         On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee in the custody of the St. Clair County Jail, in Belleville, Illinois. (Doc. 1-1, p. 12). Plaintiff was transported to the St. Clair County courthouse that day wearing leg shackles and waist cuffs. Id. Wright was the officer in charge of transport and maintaining order in the courthouse. Id. Wright escorted Plaintiff to a holding tank on the 3rd floor. Id. There are two 6 foot by 6 foot holding tanks, each with a secure door with a screen or mesh window. Id.

         Plaintiff met with his attorney at approximately 2 pm. (Doc. 1-1, p. 13). While returning to the holding cell area, the inmate in holding cell #1, Michael Brock, called Plaintiff a name. Id. Plaintiff spat at Brock through the mesh window. Id. Wright then grabbed Plaintiff by the back of his jumpsuit, and employed a hip-style throw down to take Plaintiff to the floor, ripping Plaintiff's jumpsuit in the process. (Doc. 1-1, p. 14). Plaintiff's knee and head struck the concrete floor. Id. Plaintiff skinned his knee. Id. Plaintiff also cut his face above his left eyebrow. Id. Plaintiff remained shackled throughout the entire incident. Id. Wright placed Plaintiff back in holding cell #2, and then called a nurse to come see him. Id. The nurse bandaged Plaintiff and then he was taken back to the county jail. (Doc. 1-1, p. 15).

         Plaintiff was examined by a nurse at the jail. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he should have been monitored for a concussion. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that someone forged his signature on a medical services refusal form on September 30, 2015, when he was scheduled for a follow-up visit. Id. Plaintiff began the grievance process on January 24, 2016 because he experienced vision loss in his left peripheral vision. (Doc. 1-1, p. 16). He also experienced migraines and neck pain. Id. Plaintiff was eventually found to have significant loss of vision in his left eye. Id.

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 2 counts. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial ...


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.