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.

Guzman-Zavala v. Morgan County Jail

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 19, 2017

JORGE D. GUZMAN-ZAVALA., Y-24238, Plaintiff,
v.
MORGAN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Jorge D. Guzman-Azvala., an inmate in Graham correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's claim pertains to his detention at Morgan County Jail, as a pretrial detainee, between March of 2017 and September of 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff contends officials at Morgan County Jail violated his right of access to the courts by interfering with attorney-client phone calls. In connection with this claim, Plaintiff has sued Morgan County Jail and states that he “would like relief for the duration of [his] imprisonment.” 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 is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         Between March of 2017 and September of 2017, Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee in Morgan County jail. (Doc. 1, p. 6). At the time, Plaintiff had two cases pending: (1) Case No. 16-cf-627 in Adams County, Illinois and (2) Case No. 17-cf-21 in Cass County, Illinois. Id. Plaintiff's attorney was not located nearby and their primary means of communication was via the phone. Id. After Plaintiff had difficulty calling his attorney, he filed a grievance and the jail administrator made arrangements to correct the problem. Id. Despite these arrangements, Plaintiff had difficulty speaking with his attorney and was only allowed to call him approximately two times in five months. Id. On one occasion, correctional officers denied a phone call placed by Plaintiff's attorney. Id. The attorney was told he needed to appear in person to speak with the Plaintiff. This interference harmed Plaintiff because the phone call was in reference to Plaintiff's plea agreement in the Adam's County case. Id. Plaintiff contends he wanted to withdraw his plea agreement and, but for the interference, he would not have pled guilty in the Adams County case. Id.

         Status of Adams County Case[1]

         Review of the electronic docket in the Adams County case (16-cf-627) reveals that on June 5, 2017, Plaintiff pled guilty to manufacturing or delivering a controlled substance in violation of 720 ILCS 570/401 and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. Further, according to the IDOC's website, Plaintiff is presently serving a 10-year sentence in connection with his guilty plea in the Adams County case.

         Discussion

         Designation ...


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.