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.

Jackson v. Lashbrook

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 21, 2018

KENDRICK JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUELINE A. LASHBROOK, EDVALD, PAGE, KENTE E. BROOKMAN, JASON N. HART, JACOB L. LIPE, BROWN, JOHN DOE Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Kendrick Jackson, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief and damages. 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).

         After careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff Kendrick Jackson makes the following allegations in the Complaint: Major Edvald and a crew of officers, including Defendants Lipe and Brown, shook down Plaintiff's cell on November 28, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Lipe and Brown found an altered pair of toenail clippers under Plaintiff's cellmate's mattress. Id. They also broke Plaintiff's MP3 player during the shakedown. Id. As a result of finding the toenail clippers, both Plaintiff and his cellmate were sent to segregation. Id. Lipe and Brown wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary report, which was approved by Edvald and Page. (Doc. 1-1, p. 3). Plaintiff's segregation cell was unsanitary, covered in blood and feces, subject to low water pressure, and infested with insects. (Doc. 1, p. 3).

         Plaintiff was charged with possession of dangerous contraband, even though the disciplinary report noted that the contraband was found underneath his cellmate's mattress. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Plaintiff appeared before an adjustment committee of Brookman, Hart, and John Doe on December 4, 2017. Id. Plaintiff denied knowing anything about the contraband. Id. He was not permitted to see the contraband in question. Id. Plaintiff was found guilty. Id. He was sentenced to 6 months' segregation, 6 months' C grade, and 6 months' commissary restriction. (Doc. 1, p. 5).

         Plaintiff submitted a grievance regarding the discipline on December 15, 2017. Id. Lashbrook sustained the discipline. Id. Plaintiff sent his grievance to Springfield on January 22, 2018. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Springfield ultimately determined that Plaintiff was disciplined in violation of DR504.30, and affirmed Plaintiff's grievance. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff received notice of the January 30, 2018 decision on February 13, 2018, but wasn't actually released from segregation until February 21, 2018. Id.; (Doc. 1-1, p. 9).

         Plaintiff continued to write to the Warden about the inhumane conditions in segregation. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He was never given a mattress or a pillow, or moved out of his unsanitary cell. Id. When Plaintiff was finally released from segregation, he was assigned to a less-desirable cell than the cell he had prior to the shakedown, which Plaintiff alleges was retaliation for getting his discipline expunged. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10).

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 4 Counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a ...


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.