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.

Medford v. Everett

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 30, 2017

SCOTT MEDFORD, Plaintiff,
v.
EVERETT Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Scott Medford, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that allegedly occurred at St. Clair County Jail. 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).

         Upon careful review of the Amended Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff originally brought suit in case No. 17-cv-243-JPG on March 8, 2017. (Doc. 2). On September 21, 2017, the Court severed the claims in that lawsuit into separate cases, including this one. (Doc. 1). The severance Order noted that the Complaint named people in the body of the Complaint, but not in the case caption, which precluded the Court from recognizing those individuals as parties. In particular, it noted that it appeared that Plaintiff intended Count 7, the claim in this case, to proceed against C/O Everett and that the Court may consider granting Plaintiff leave to correct that deficiency. (Doc. 1, p. 9). On October 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion asking for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 6). On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Everett. (Doc. 7).

         All parties may amend their pleadings once as a matter of course. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original, rendering the original void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court therefore accepts the Amended Complaint and reviews it pursuant to § 1915A.

         Plaintiff's statement of claims in its entirety reads as follows: “On March 2017 I asked C/O Everett to sign my forma pauperis form to farther my civil suit. He denied me and told me he couldn't help me. The C/O Everett display negligence boldly talked down to inmates and are extreme unresponsive.” (Doc. 7, p. 5) (grammatical and spelling errors in original).

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into a single count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders, ...


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.