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.

Bankston v. Vandalia Correctional Center

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 31, 2017

RINALDO BANKSTON, Plaintiff,
v.
VANDALIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, and TRITT Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Rinaldo Bankston, currently an inmate at Shawnee Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that occurred at Vandalia Correctional Center (“Vandalia”). Plaintiff requests that Defendant Tritt be removed from his job and that cameras be installed at Vandalia.[1] 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

         Plaintiff originally filed suit on May 26, 2017 in the Northern District of Illinois. (Doc. 1).[2] On May 30, 2017, the case was ordered transferred into this District, but for reasons that are unclear to the undersigned, the case was not actually transferred until September 14, 2017. (Docs. 5, 7).

         Plaintiff alleges that on April 20, 2017, he missed the 7:15 pm pill line and was called to the health care unit at 8:00 pm. (Doc. 1, p. 4). While on his way, the Lt. Warden appeared and called Plaintiff a “lame ass” and asked Plaintiff why he was late. Id. Plaintiff told the Lt. Warden not to speak to him like that. Id.

         Plaintiff then encountered Defendant Tritt who told Plaintiff to speed up because “he wasn't as nice as the Lt. Warden” and that he would beat Plaintiff and throw him in segregation. Id. Plaintiff responded that Tritt would have to halfway kill him and that he hadn't done anything wrong. Id. Tritt then took Plaintiff's ID card and said he had something for “you big mouth nigger.” (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). Plaintiff grieved this “verbal assault.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). He was later moved to the disciplinary holding unit out of concerns for his safety because he believed the guards were targeting him for asking for more pants. Id. Plaintiff has since been transferred out of Vandalia. (Doc. 6).

         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.