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.

Robinsonn v. Manskem

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 27, 2018

JARROD ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CRAIG MANSKEM, and JAMES MOUNT, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff Jarrod Robinson, a detainee at Chester Mental Health Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims, among other things, that Defendant Manskem subjected him to excessive force. (Doc. 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 allow this case to proceed past the threshold stage.

         The Complaint

         In his Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following allegations[1]: Plaintiff was assaulted by Officer Ewing on December 9 of an unspecified year. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff's hand was sliced open to the bone. Id. Officer Ewing, Yandel, Haang, Zuhlke, and Hanes said it appeared to be a minor contusion and asked Plaintiff why he did it to himself. Id. After Ewing and other officers exited and returned, they asked Plaintiff to put his hands behind his back, even though he was severely bleeding, so that he could be taken to medical for medical attention. Id. Plaintiff believes the seriousness of the injury suggested that he should have been taken to the emergency room. Id. The Shift Commander, Hanes, was advised that all was well.[2] Id.

         Gary Edmisson brought Plaintiff things to treat his wounds, but he continued to lose “massive amounts of blood and started to feel sick and lightheaded.” (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4). Plaintiff hit his emergency button and discovered later that day that Jeffery Clark had isolated his intercom. (Doc. 1, p. 4). On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff was punched in the face by Craig Manskem on camera. Id. He suffered multiple “abrasions, contusions, and many other injuries.” Id. He was choked and beaten severely by Manskem. Id. C/O McKinnies tased Plaintiff as Jesse Garcia attempted to place him in metal restraints. Id. Plaintiff claims there was no justification for his being tased or struck in the face. Id.

         Plaintiff pressed his emergency button to notify someone that he was in need of immediate medical attention. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He lost consciousness and hit his head. Id. Plaintiff was put on a stretcher and into an ambulance. Id. Plaintiff arrived at an emergency room. Id. It hurt for him to breathe. Id. Plaintiff received a CT Scan, and he was told by a doctor that everything appeared normal but that they were still awaiting certain lab results. Id. It was discovered that Plaintiff's heart enzymes “were way off the chart.” (Doc. 1, p. 8).

         Page 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint is covered in notes of various sizes and orientations. (Doc. 1, p. 9). He lists various individuals he claims to be pursuing legal proceedings against, including Doctor Lochard, Walther Hughes, and Catherine Durbin. Id. A large portion of page 10 is illegible. (Doc. 1, p. 10). One legible portion notes that “Robinson” has been subjected to multiple aggravated assaults and battery and that Plaintiff has been subjected to cruel, unusual, inhumane, and unsanitary living environments. Id. Page 10 comes after what appears to be Plaintiff's signature page on which he wrote “End of Narrative” in very large print. Id. It is unclear whether Plaintiff intends for it to be included as part of the statement of claim. Id. Page 11 is the previously mentioned Information with handwritten notes in the margins and ...


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.