Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Holmes v. Loung

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 24, 2018




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

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

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff alleges a variety of grievances, including that Owens and Clarrisha[1]signed his name to documents without his knowledge (Doc. 1, p. 6); Loung and Moore put a bio-electromagnetic weapon, called a “Harlan Girard, ” in his body without his consent by pretending that it was a TB test (Id.); Plaintiff and his family were tortured, causing him to take a case when he didn't want to, sign over some money, and “steal artwork from me.” (Id.); Jones, Yets, King, Mya, and Mary ordered him and his family tortured (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7); Ann has been stealing his mail (Doc. 1, p. 7); Loung and others have sexually assaulted Plaintiff in his sleep (Id.); Loung and others tricked Plaintiff's family into coming to Menard Correctional Center and being sexually assaulted (Id.); and Menard is taking money out of Plaintiff's trust fund account (Id.).

         Plaintiff alleges that he has grieved these issues, but the Head of the Committee and all of the wardens from 2001 until present have refused to stop it. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that Lynn, Maue, Hale, Wall, Dilday, Middendorf, Craig, Mitchell, and Hinsley retaliated against him for filing a lawsuit. Id.

         Further, Plaintiff alleges that the Web, Cearson, and Jones families set Plaintiff up on the case that he is serving time for (Doc. 1, p. 8); that Plaintiff has had a boom box, 17 cassette tapes, art, 260 articles, and magazines stolen from him during transfers (Id.); Staff made a $928.55 billion deal with Plaintiff on a Bible verse, and refused to pay when they lost (Id.); and that due to the “Harlan Girard” device described above, Plaintiff has been enslaved by Menard's officers (Id.).


         Prior to addressing the merits of Plaintiff's claims, the Court must address some preliminary matters. First of all, Plaintiff has listed “James Jacobs” as a co-Plaintiff, (Doc. 1, p. 1), but it does not appear that Jacobs is actively participating in this lawsuit, or that any of the allegations in the Complaint relate to him. The Complaint form used by Plaintiff directs a litigant to submit a separate sheet of paper listing any co-plaintiff's name, aliases, I.D. number, place of confinement, and current address, but no sheet was submitted on Jacobs' behalf. (Doc. 1, p. 2). In fact, the Court has no address for Jacobs at all. Jacobs did not sign the Complaint. (Doc. 1, p. 10). The civil cover sheet submitted in connection with this suit does not list Jacobs as a Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, p. 1). Jacobs did not submit a motion to proceed IFP. Plaintiff has filed two additional motions since bringing this case, neither of them is signed by Jacobs. (Doc. 12) (Doc. 14). Most importantly, Jacobs is not mentioned ...

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.