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.

Medfordd v. Unknown Party

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 17, 2017

SCOTT A. MEDFORD, Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          PHIL GILBERT, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         In Medford v. McLaurin, Case No. 17-cv-243-JPG (S.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2017) (“Original Action”), Plaintiff Scott Medford, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights that allegedly occurred at St. Clair County Jail. Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), a deliberate indifference claim pertaining to a correctional officer's alleged lack of knowledge in life preservation techniques was severed from that initial action to form the basis for this action, Case No. 17-cv-1016-JPG.

         This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of that claim 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).

         After fully considering the relevant allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court concludes that this action is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         The allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) relevant to this severed action are as follows: C.O. Lazante is not “educated on how to preserve life.” (Doc. 2, p. 8). An inmate had a seizure, and Lazante left him on his back while he was seizing. Id. Another inmate tended to the seizing inmate in order to prevent him from choking. Id.

         Discussion

         In its Severance Order (Doc. 1), the Court designated the following count to be severed into this pro se action. The parties and the Court will continue to use this designation in all future pleadings and ...


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.