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.

Adamczyk v. Baldwin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 27, 2017

LAWRENCE ADAMCZYK, Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE BALDWIN, DR. HOLT, and ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          David R. Herndon United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Lawrence Adamczyk, a sexually dangerous person (SDP) in Big Muddy Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on his confinement as an SDP. Plaintiff requests declarative relief, immediate release and monetary damages. SDPs are subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 et seq.; See Kalinwoski v. Bond, 358 F.3d 978, 978-79 (7th Cir. 2004).

         Therefore, the Court will conduct 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 action are subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff was declared a sexually dangerous person in or about 2014 and committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections. (Doc. 7-1, p. 3). He alleges that to secure his commitment, he was charged with a made-up crime, and the charges were later dismissed. (Doc. 1-1, p. 1). He denies that he ever needed treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff alleges that Baldwin, the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), and Dr. Holt, the administrator of the SDP program at Big Muddy, violated his constitutional rights because they knew that his confinement without trial was improper but accepted custody over him anyway. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff further alleges that despite the fact that he is a ward of the state confined for treatment, and not a convicted felon, he is treated as a prisoner and not given appropriate care or treatment to ensure his recovery. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). Plaintiff also has inadequate clothing and inadequate access to the courts. (Doc. 1-1, p. 6). He is subject to inhumane conditions of confinement, including excessive heat and poor ventilation. Id. He is forced to come into contact with other state prisoners. (Doc. 1, p. 9).

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 4 counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a ...


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.