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. Lashbrook

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 30, 2017

CHRISTOPHER CROOM, Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, and RODELY Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          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 at 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 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

         Previously, plaintiff brought this claim in case No. 17-612 on June 9, 2017. (Doc. 1). 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). The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on June 19, 2017 for failure to state a claim because plaintiff had not associated any defendants with his claim. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 29, 2017. (Doc. 10).

         Pursuant to the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he sent a grievance to Counselor Rodely on March 14, 2017 regarding an enemy of his that is also housed at Menard. (Doc. 10, p. 5). Plaintiff alleges that Marlon Brown was an enemy of his on the streets. Id. One day at legal call, plaintiff saw an inmate housed in West Cell house with Brown. Id. That inmate told plaintiff that Brown knew plaintiff was at Menard and would “catch [him] in traffic.” Id. Plaintiff interprets this as a statement that Brown will get him when he sees him. Id. Plaintiff sent a grievance to Rodely and marked it as an emergency. Id. Plaintiff's understanding is that emergency grievances are sent directly to the Warden, so he assumes Warden Lashbrook saw the grievance. (Doc. 10, p. 6). Plaintiff never received a response to his grievance from either Rodely or Lashbrook. Id.

         Plaintiff has also requested injunctive relief on this claim. (Doc. 11). Specifically, he requests “transfer of Plaintiff from this institution to be away from a constant threat of danger from a murderer.” (Doc. 10, p. 8).

         Discussion

         The Court finds it convenient to construe plaintiff's claim as one count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future Orders:

Count 1 - Rodely and Lashbrook were deliberately indifferent to the serious risk of harm posed by plaintiff's enemy, Marlon Brown, when they failed to respond to his ...

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.