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.

Hampton v. Meyer

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

September 1, 2017

DEON HAMPTON, NO. M15934, Plaintiff,
v.
MEYER, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

         On August 31, 2017, the Court received an “Emergency Motion” from Plaintiff Deon Hampton. (Doc. 1). The pleading does not include a case number and was not accompanied by a complaint. After reviewing the pleading, the Clerk opened the instant action as a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 and docketed the “Emergency Motion” as a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO Motion). (Doc. 1).

         TRO Motion

         At times, the pleading is nearly incomprehensible. However, the Court is able to discern the following. Plaintiff was recently transferred from Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”) to Menard. While at Pinckneyville, Plaintiff complained about, reported, and/or or filed a complaint regarding constitutional violations that allegedly occurred at Pinckneyville. Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to Menard. According to Plaintiff, Menard officials have been retaliating against her[1] for reporting/complaining about the constitutional violations at Pinckneyville. The Court was able to discern the following allegations with respect to the alleged retaliatory conduct:

• When Plaintiff was placed on the Menard bus (during her transfer from Pinckneyville to Menard) she was choked and pushed to the floor. When Plaintiff asked what she did wrong, she was told “this is what happens when you fuck with one of us. We stick together.”
• Since arrival at Menard, Plaintiffs property has been withheld and Plaintiff has been denied mental health treatment.
• A letter Plaintiff intended to mail to her mother and a pleading Plaintiff intended to file were ripped up by a lieutenant.
• She has been called names such as “bitch, ” “whore, ” and “nigger.”
• A guard at Menard allowed Plaintiff and another inmate to be assaulted. It is unclear who the assailants were.
• She has been beaten and threatened.
• She has been placed in a cell without a mattress or blankets. She only has a moldy cot to sleep on. Her cell has no running water.

         Plaintiff states she fears Menard staff will kill her out of retaliation for bringing claims against Pinckneyville officials. She asks the Court to remove her from Menard and transfer her to another prison for her own safety.

         Prior Pending Action 17-cv-860-MJR

         A review of CM/ECF reveals that Plaintiff has a previously filed § 1983 pro se civil rights action pending in the Southern District of Illinois (“Prior Action”). See Hampton v. Lt. Meyer, et al., No. 17-cv-860-MJR. The Prior Action, filed August 14, 2017, involves constitutional violations that allegedly occurred at Pinckneyville and is directed at various Pinckneyville officials. The Prior Action is awaiting preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

         The Court makes note of the Prior Action for two reasons: First, the Prior Action may be the basis for the retaliation Plaintiff is allegedly experiencing at Menard. Second, certain aspects of the TRO Motion suggest that Plaintiff may have intended to file the pleading as a motion in the Prior Action (as opposed to opening a new action). Specifically, the pleading includes a heading that identifies “Meyer et. al” (reflecting the abbreviated defendant list in the Prior Action) as the defendants. Additionally, Plaintiff references Judge “M.J. Reagan” (the ...


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.