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.

Webb v. Huffman

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 18, 2017

JAMES R. WEBB, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
HUFFMAN, ANDERSON, STRATTEN, LEE, MICKELSON, and BRASHEAR Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff James Webb, currently confined at the Alton Mental Health Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that allegedly occurred at the Jackson County Jail. Plaintiff seeks removal from probation, declarative relief, and monetary damages for pain and suffering. Previously, Plaintiff's original Complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to name a proper defendant. (Doc. 5). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the 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).

         The Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff alleges that on October 2, 2016, he passed out in the shower because his carotid arteries have been permanently damaged by a prior suicide attempt. (Doc. 7, p. 6). Huffman, Anderson, and Stratten put Plaintiff in a wheel chair. Id. They did not use the foot rests, and so Plaintiff's feet dragged on the floor. Id. They took Plaintiff to the drunk tank and threw him into a pile of bloody feces and vomit on the floor. Id. Plaintiff asked to go to the emergency room, but was denied. Id. He saw a nurse 4 days later. Id.

         Another inmate, Easterly, beat Plaintiff up while Huffman, Lee, Mickelson, and Brashear watched and failed to intervene. Id. Plaintiff had been asking to be moved off K-Block. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Huffman directed Easterly to attack Plaintiff. Id.

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 2 counts. The Court found that the original complaint contained 3 counts, but Plaintiff has not included any facts in support of his original contention that he was unfairly disciplined as a result of the Easterly incident. As the Amended Complaint must stand alone without reference to the original Complaint, Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004), the Court construes the absence of these facts as an abandonment of the claim. Thus, the following two claims are the only claims presented by the Amended Complaint.

         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 Huffman, Anderson, and Stratten were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they refused to get ...

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.