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.

Hubbard v. Butler

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 29, 2017

MICHAEL HUBBARD, Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLY BUTLER Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Michael Hubbard, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center (‘Menard”), brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests “all parties involved held accountable” and monetary damages. 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 filed suit on June 28, 2017. (Doc. 1). The Court conducted a 1915A review of the original Complaint and dismissed it without prejudice on August 22, 2017, finding that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim in numerous respects. (Doc. 5).

         The Court noted that although Plaintiff had alleged that his cellmate sexually assaulted him, he did not allege any facts suggesting that any official knew about a specific threat to Plaintiff and failed to take action to protect him. (Doc. 5, p. 3). Plaintiff also alleged that his subsequent medical treatment was delayed, but failed to allege that he was harmed by any of the delays he experienced. (Doc. 5, pp. 3-4). Likewise, while Plaintiff alleged that he was denied protective custody, he failed to explain what harm he suffered as a result of the denial. (Doc. 5, p. 4).

         Additionally, the Court noted that the Complaint named a sole defendant, Kim Butler, despite the lack of any allegations that Butler was personally involved in any of the conduct at issue. Id. The Court explained that personal involvement is required and that Plaintiff cannot name supervisory officials simply because of their positions. (Doc. 5, pp. 4-5). As a result of these pleading deficiencies, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint.

         Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on September 11, 2017. (Doc. 6). The Amended Complaint is a photocopy of the original Complaint with a single page containing additional facts attached at the end. (Doc. 6, p. 16). Once again, Butler is the only named defendant.

         As recounted in the Court's prior Order, Plaintiff alleges that his cellmate began sexually abusing him in June 2015. (Doc. 6, p. 5). Plaintiff was later moved to East House and reported the abuse during a sick call visit on July 25, 2015. (Doc. 6, pp. 5, 11). The doctor denied Plaintiff a full STD test, but administered an HIV test. (Doc. 6, p. 5). Plaintiff was not given his ...


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.