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.

Kidd v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 5, 2017

SHAUN STEVEN KIDD, #43108-074, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Phil Gilbert District Judge

         Plaintiff Shaun Kidd, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary located in Marion, Illinois (“USP-Marion”), brings this action against the Federal Bureau of Prisons pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, 2671-80. Plaintiff filed a “Bill of Complaint for Eighth Amendment Violations, ” in which he complains of unconstitutional conditions of confinement at USP-Marion. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-6). He seeks monetary relief against the defendant. (Doc. 1, p. 2).

         This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint (Doc. 1) 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. The Complaint is subject to dismissal under this standard.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff filed a “Bill of Complaint for Eighth Amendment Violations” against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346, 2671-80. His “Bill of Complaint” consists of a two-page document, which indicates that Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against the BOP under the FTCA. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). However, the “Bill of Complaint” sets forth virtually no coherent factual allegations against the defendant. Id. Plaintiff instead relies on statements he made in a “Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death” that he filed with the BOP on December 28, 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-6). He attached a copy of the Claim to the “Bill of Complaint” and incorporated it by reference therein. Id.

         There, Plaintiff challenges the conditions of his confinement in the Communications Management Unit (“CMU”) at USP-Marion. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-6). He complains about an accumulation of bird “feces, urine, saliva, bird feathers, etcs [sic], inside the windows, window panes, [and] screens.” (Doc. 1, p. 3). In the cells, Plaintiff is exposed to “urine, semen, saliva, blood plasma, sweat, bird feathers, animal hair, parasites, bacteria, e-coli, fungi, AIDS/HIV, hepatitis, bacilli-cocci organisms, and other disease[s].” (Doc. 1, p. 4). He has also observed mold and notes a “constant odor” in the unit. Id.

         The unit allegedly has “deplorable ventilation systems” that cause “deplorable inhalation” due to “poor air circulation.” (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4). Plaintiff expresses concern that exposure to these conditions “can/will exacerbate asthma and many other health concerns . . . [l]ike throat cancer” for the inmates. Id. He blames these conditions for making him sick “three times.” (Doc. 1, p. 6). However, Plaintiff does not disclose what symptoms or health problems he experienced. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-6).

         The only “chemical” that is available to inmates for cleaning on a daily basis is a “pink solution.” (Doc. 1, p. 3). On November 8, 2016, inmates were also given other cleaning supplies, including gloves, dusk masks, a ladder, and a special key to secure the windows. Id. Plaintiff and three other inmates received these supplies. Id. However, the four of them simply could not address all of the problems. Id. To do so would require additional manpower, scaffolding, and a hydraulic system for power washing the area. (Doc. 1, p. 4). ...


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.