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.

Williams v. Pinckneyville Correctional Center

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 8, 2019

LENDELL WILLIAMS, #N83205, Plaintiff,
v.
PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, SCOTT THOMPSON, WEXFORD, MYERS, C/O JOHN DOE 1, C/O JOHN DOE 2, C/O JOHN DOE 3, C/O JOHN DOE 4, CHRISTINE BROWN, and THOMAS LEHMAN, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Lendell Williams, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that corrections officers failed to protect him from being viciously attacked by his cellmate, resulting in serious head injuries. He also claims Pinckneyville officials deprived his liberty and property without due process and prescribed medicine that is banned by the Food and Drug Administration. He seeks monetary damages. (Doc. 1, p. 7).

         The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations are liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff makes the following allegations: Plaintiff, who was not convicted of a crime involving violence, was celled with an inmate who is known for violent behavior. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Corrections officers at Pinckneyville routinely do not walk the cell house like they are supposed to and spend a majority of their time during the day talking with each other. (Id. at p. 6). Because they do not periodically check on the inmates, on October 20, 2018, after attempting to get the guard's attention, Plaintiff was attacked by his cellmate with a hotpot. (Id. at pp. 5, 6). He incurred extensive injuries that required ten staples in his head and multiple stiches on his face and lip. (Id. at p. 5). Following the incident, he was placed in solitary confinement for twenty days without a disciplinary ticket, incident report, or explanation. (Id.). While in segregation he lost all of his family pictures. (Id.).

         Plaintiff is suffering from bipolar and depression and has been issued Remeron, a drug that is banned by the Food and Drug Administration and that has caused negative side effects, including internal bleeding. (Id. at p. 6).

         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate the following Counts in this pro se action:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for failing to protect Plaintiff from being attacked by his cellmate resulting in extensive head injuries.
Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for placing Plaintiff in segregation for twenty days without the due process of law.
Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for the deprivation of Plaintiff's property, his personal photos, while in segregation without the due process of law.
Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need by treating Plaintiff's illness with a drug that has been banned by the Food and Drug Administration.

         The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.[1]

         Discussion

         The Complaint does not survive preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because Plaintiff does not mention any of the defendants listed in the case caption in the statement of his claim. Therefore, the Court is ...


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.