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.

Baker v. Wexford Health Sources

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 13, 2018

JUSTIN BAKER, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, TROST, GAIL WALLS, SIDDIQUI, KIMBERLY LASHBROOK, KIMBERLY BUTLER, S. HILL, KELLY PIERCE, JOHN BALDWIN, CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, DAVE WHITE, DEBBIE KNAVER, ANN LAHR, MULDENHOWER, and MEDICAL STAFF Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Justin Baker, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests $100, 000. 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).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff's Complaint includes 135 pages of exhibits. (Doc. 1-1). He used a form Complaint, but instead of providing a statement of claim, Plaintiff has written, “See Plaintiff's Exhibit B.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). None of the exhibits are marked, and if there is an Exhibit B, the Court cannot find it. Plaintiff's exhibits consist of grievances and “kites” to prison staff, as well as his medical records. (Doc. 1-1).

         Discussion

         Plaintiff appears to be complaining about medical care he received for his ankle. This may state an Eighth Amendment violation, however, the Complaint is impossible to evaluate as currently presented.

         Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure directs that a complaint must provide “a short and plain statement of claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d) requires that each allegation within the Complaint must be “simple, concise, and direct.” The allegations in the complaint must “actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to relief beyond a speculative level.” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008). By refusing to make any statement of claim, Plaintiff has missed this mark. The Court is left to guess what was done to Plaintiff, by whom, and within which time frame. Some of the exhibits refer to events that occurred in 2009, well beyond the statute of limitations. Plaintiff also has both named a large number of individuals and attached voluminous exhibits. This requires the Court to hunt through the exhibits for each defendant's name and then try to guess what Plaintiff thinks that person did. That is more than can be reasonably expected. All claims against all defendants must be set forth in a single document. The Court will not sift through Plaintiff's exhibits for him and attempt to cobble together grievances into a coherent constitutional claim. The Complaint as currently drafted runs afoul of Rule 8 and for that reason, it must be dismissed.

         The Court will, however, give Plaintiff an opportunity to submit an amended complaint to correct the flaw in his pleading. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint, of course, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to state a claim and assess a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Amended Complaint also will be reviewed pursuant to § 1915A.

         Pending ...


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.