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.

Foggy v. Illinois Department of Corrections

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

January 20, 2017

DELAWRENCE FOGGY, #B84899, Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WEXFORD HEALTHCARE SERVICE, KIMBERLY BUTLER, and TONYA SMITH, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Delawrence Foggy, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of his constitutional rights while an inmate at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Plaintiff claims he was subjected to extreme heat while in his cell at Menard and received inadequate care when he lost consciousness as a result. (Doc. 1, pp. 7, 9). 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). Plaintiff's Complaint does not survive preliminary review under this standard.

         The Complaint

         According to the Complaint, Foggy was transferred to Menard on June 12, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Foggy allegedly spoke with a corrections officer at the prison about an “extreme heat problem.” Id. He requested a fan but was denied. Id. He then requested to speak with a sergeant about the situation but was denied that as well. Id. Foggy eventually passed out from exposure to the “extreme ‘hot.'” Id. Nurse Smith came to his cell, took his “blood pulse” and found it was “very, very, low.” Id. Even so, Foggy was refused treatment by Wexford Healthcare Service. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Foggy wrote a grievance to Warden Kimberly Butler to complain about the conditions of his confinement and/or the incident, but she did not respond. (Doc. 1, p. 9).

         Foggy now brings suit against the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), Wexford Healthcare Service (“Wexford”), Kimberly Butler (“Warden Butler”) and Tonya Smith (“Nurse Smith”) for depriving him of his constitutional rights. He requests monetary damages against them. (Doc. 1, p. 8).

         Discussion

         The Court finds it convenient to divide the Complaint into the following enumerated counts. The organization of these counts should not be construed as an opinion regarding their merits. 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.

Count 1:Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they refused him treatment for heat exposure and a “low blood pulse.”
Count 2:Defendants subjected Plaintiff to unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they failed to provide him with a fan or remedy the “extreme ...

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.