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.

Cripe v. Unknown Party

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 9, 2017

TYLER D. CRIPE, Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff Tyler Cripe, a detainee at Fayette County Jail, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights at the Jail. See Cripe v. Glidden, No. 17-cv-00745-JPG-SCW (S.D. Ill.) (“original action”). He brought several unrelated claims against different groups of defendants in his original action. (Doc. 2). Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), this Court severed the claims into two additional cases on October 19, 2017. (Doc. 1) (“Severance Order”).

         The instant case addresses a single claim against an Unknown Party for failing to provide Plaintiff with an initial health assessment at the Jail or prescription medication for his mental illness and asthma (“Count 2, ” original action). (Doc. 1, p. 5). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of Count 2 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).

         The Complaint

         In the Complaint, Plaintiff claims that he was denied adequate medical care at the Jail. (Doc. 2). At booking, he informed an Unknown Party that he suffered from asthma and a mental illness. (Doc. 2, p. 5). Plaintiff was told that he would be seen by a doctor within two weeks. Id. He subsequently asked to see a physician “several times” but never met with one. Id.

         As a result, Plaintiff was denied an albuterol inhaler for management of his asthma. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff has trouble breathing in the morning. Id. He also cannot exercise without his albuterol. Id.

         In addition, Plaintiff was taken off of prescription medication for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). (Doc. 2, p. 5). He was given a different medication that is ineffective. Id. He was never even told what the new medication is intended to treat. Id.

         Plaintiff now seeks monetary damages and a correction of “procedures” at the Jail “so no other detainee ...


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.