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.

Huntt v. Swanson

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 21, 2018

JEREMY DEAN HUNT, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
JAY SWANSON, GRAHAM CORR. CENTER, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, KAYLA, BAKER, GIBSON, COLLINS, and MILLER Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jeremy Dean Hunt, Sr., formerly an inmate at Graham Correctional Center (“Graham”), brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks compensatory 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 brought this suit on February 5, 2018 in the Central District of Illinois. (Doc. 1). It was transferred to this Court on February 7, 2018. (Doc. 4). On April 18, 2018, the Court dismissed the Complaint under § 1915A for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 15). Specifically, the Court found that Count 1 (deliberate indifference) failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it did not include sufficient facts to make it plausible that Swanson (then the only named Defendant) acted with deliberate indifference. (Doc. 15, p. 4). The Court also noted that the Complaint did not specifically allege that Swanson was a state actor or acted under the color of state law. (Doc. 15, p. 3). Finally, the Court found that Plaintiff was attempting to state a medical negligence claim against Swanson, but dismissed that claim because Plaintiff had not complied with Illinois state law. (Doc. 15, pp. 4-6). Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint presently before the Court on May 1, 2018. (Doc. 18).

         Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint asserts a deliberate indifference claim. (Doc. 18, p. 5). He alleges that the wrong procedure done - that it was “just a bandaide(sic).” Id. Plaintiff also alleges that as a result, he now has a terrible cross-bite, which makes it difficult to eat and chew. Id.

         Discussion

         Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains even less detail than his original Complaint, and thus fails to correct any of the problems described by the Court in its prior Order. In fact, the allegations are essentially identical to the original Complaint. Generally, an amended complaint that states the same facts using different language will be futile. Garcia v. City of Chicago, Ill., 24 F.3d 966, 970 (7th Cir. 1994).

         The Court previously noted it was unclear that Plaintiff had named a state actor for purposes of pursuing a § 1983 claim. The Amended Complaint names five additional individuals; 3 lieutenants at Graham, ...


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.