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. Bonjack

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

January 24, 2018

SCOTT A. MEDFORD, #Y22728, Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. BONJACK and NURSE JANE or JOHN DOE, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge

         This matter is now before the Court for consideration of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) filed by Plaintiff Scott Medford, an inmate who is currently incarcerated in Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Plaintiff originally filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights at St. Clair County Jail (“Jail”). See Medford v. McLaurin, No. 17-cv-243-JPG (S.D. Ill.) (“original action”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff brought several unrelated claims against different defendants. (Doc. 2). Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), the Court severed the unrelated claims into new cases. (Doc. 1) (“Severance Order”).

         The instant case was opened on September 21, 2017. (Doc. 1). It addresses a single severed claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement based on Plaintiff's exposure to an inmate who suffered from staph infection. (“Count 8, ” original action). The Court screened this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, but it did not survive preliminary review. (Doc. 5). In a Dismissal Order dated September 25, 2017, Count 8 was dismissed without prejudice. Id.

         However, Plaintiff was granted leave to re-plead the claim by filing a First Amended Complaint by October 24, 2017.[1] Id.

         Plaintiff filed a timely First Amended Complaint on October 25, 2017, and it is now subject to preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 9). Section 1915A 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.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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 First Amended Complaint does not survive screening and shall be dismissed.

         First Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff sets forth the following allegations in his First Amended Complaint:

Arthur Hunsaker an inmate on AB Block Cell #9 had staph spreading rapidly. On 4-26-17 the entire Block wrote Captain Complaint to administrator and supervisor asking that Arthur be treated[.] [H]e had complained for a week without being seen by medical. After complain[t]s went out[, ] Arthur refused to lock down. SGT Bojack inspected Arthur and sent him back in his cell[.] SGT Bojack isn't medical. Arthur's huge boils were later bandaged by a nurse[, ] and he was given antibiotics but th[e]n placed back on the Block [and] not in medical. This exposure to staph shoudn't have occu[r]red. Intent[ionally] put in harmful conditions with no reguard (sic) for inmates (sic) safety. For over two weeks they did nothing to move him.

(Doc. 9, p. 9). The allegations in the First Amended Complaint are virtually identical to the allegations in the original ...


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.