Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Bradley v. Dennision

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 28, 2017




         Plaintiff Deandre Bradley, an inmate currently at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights that occurred at Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”). Plaintiff requests monetary damages and injunctive relief.[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 Complaints

         Original Complaint

         Plaintiff originally brought suit on August 3, 2017 against Defendants Dennison, Smoot, David and Bradford. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). At the time Plaintiff filed the original Complaint, he was housed in the infirmary unit. He alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his disability and that he suffered 5 injuries between March 10, 2017 and August 3, 2017, some due to staff assaults. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Lt. Bradford assaulted him on July 17, 2017 because he was unhappy that Plaintiff was being allowed to visit the dietary unit. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff also alleged that he was assaulted by Officers Causey Maun, Olegs and Phelps, although he did not name them as defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff claimed that he was denied access to programs, services and activities because Shawnee does not have adequate facilities to serve handicapped inmates. (Doc. 1, p. 2). He also alleged that his housing assignment denied him access to certain programs and that he has been assaulted in the health care unit in the past. (Doc. 1, p. 5).

         Plaintiff asserted that he has grieved all of the incidents that form the basis of this action. (Doc. 1, p. 5). However, he also stated that the “majority of these are in the last stage of exhausting [sic] in which have been sent to the Administrative Review Board in which they have six months to respond.” Id. Finally, Plaintiff alleged that his health and safety were at risk and that “anything could happen”. Id. Plaintiff was transferred to Big Muddy River Correctional Center sometime prior to August 27, 2017. (Doc. 8-1).

         Amended Complaint

         On September 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8). The accompanying motion for leave to amend states that the issues related to Plaintiff's safety had been resolved. (Doc. 8-1, p. 1).[2] The Amended Complaint alleges that Shawnee was unable to accommodate Plaintiff's disability, that Dr. David was deliberately indifferent to his disability by failing to provide specific treatments and medical devices, that Smoot and Dennison were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's complaints and that it was cruel and unusual punishment to assign Plaintiff to the health care unit because it ...

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.