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.

Williamss v. Mount

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 18, 2017

D'AARON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
MOUNT, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, HAYNES, and JANE DOE 2 Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          GILBERT, District Judge

         Plaintiff D'Aaron Williams, an inmate in the Cook County Department of Corrections, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions that occurred in the Jefferson County Detention Facility. Previously, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff has now filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff requests declarative relief and monetary damages. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Second Amended 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 Second Amended Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Second Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff originally filed this case on November 21, 2016. (Doc. 1). On December 19, 2016, he filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 4). The Court screened the Amended Complaint on December 29, 2016 and dismissed it without prejudice. (Doc. 29). On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10).

         Plaintiff suffers from stress, depression, anxiety attacks, mood swings, and lack of sleep and appetite. (Doc. 10, p. 6). Through a kiosk, Plaintiff told Hanes and Lt. Jane Doe 2, and a nurse that he needed his medication. (Doc. 10, p. 3, 6). Plaintiff has been taking medication for years. Id. Plaintiff also told Mount that he needed his medication. Id. On November 14, 2016, Mount told Plaintiff “while you are housed in our facility, you will be under the care of your medical dept. Correctional staff cannot override the decision of the doctor.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. John Doe denied him his medication. Id. Even after reviewing a copy of Plaintiff's medications from Cook County, and hearing about Plaintiff's mental health situation, the nurse refused to give Plaintiff his medications. Id. Without his medications, Plaintiff suffers from withdrawal symptoms, including vomiting and fecal incontinence. (Doc. 10, p. 2). Plaintiff got sick from withdrawal, but Jane Doe 1 would not provide treatment until she saw Plaintiff “shit.” Id. Plaintiff attributes his ability to remain calm and abstain from fighting to his mental health medication. Id.

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 1 count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court.

         Count 1 - Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical need in ...


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.