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.

Croom v. Unknown Party

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 16, 2017

CHRISTOPHER CROOM, Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Judge David R. Herndon United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Christopher Croom brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that allegedly occurred in Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff seeks declarative relief, monetary damages, and injunctive relief. 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).

         Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action will be dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint.

         The Complaint

         Previously, plaintiff brought this claim in case No. 17-612. This claim was deemed severable pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) and this action was opened on June 14, 2017. (Doc. 1).

         As pertinent to this claim, plaintiff alleges that he has an enemy at Menard who is incarcerated for murdering plaintiff's best friend. (Doc. 2, p. 13). Plaintiff himself is incarcerated for allegedly murdering an associate of the enemy. Id. The enemy has threated plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff fears for his life and believes that something will happen when he sees his enemy. Id. He has alleged that Menard is deliberately indifferent to the fact of his enemy. Id. The copy of the grievance attached as “Doc. 7” states that plaintiff's enemy is Marlon Brown and he is currently housed in the West House at Menard. (Doc. 2, p. 29).

         Plaintiff has also requested injunctive relief on this claim. (Doc. 2, p. 15). Specifically, he requests to be “transferred to an institution where my life is not in danger from a murderer.” Id.

         Discussion

         The order dividing plaintiff's claims into separate cases ...


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.