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.

Truidalle v. Brookhart

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 4, 2019

FREDEAL TRUIDALLE, #K79979, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN BROOKHART, ROB JEFFREYS, C/O PIPER, LT. OCHS, C/O FISHER, C/O HICKS, C/O VAUGHN, C/O CRAWFORTH, JOHN/JANE DOE, and C/O WEST, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Fredeal Truidalle, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff asserts medical and property claims related to the deprivation of his personal property while he was in segregation. (Doc. 1). He seeks monetary damages. (Id.).

         This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, 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).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Complaint: Plaintiff was taken to Lawrence segregation on February 26, 2017under investigation. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He was walked to segregation without his eyeglasses and dentures. (Id.). Plaintiff told C/O West and C/O Crawforth that he needed his eyeglasses and dentures. (Id.). He also told them that he could not eat without his dentures. (Id.). C/O West told Plaintiff to send a request to personal property but not to expect anything from them because they do not care about segregation property. (Id.). Plaintiff filed a grievance. (Id.) He also filed several requests with mental health and internal affairs. (Id.).

         While he was deprived of his dentures, Plaintiff had digestion and constipation issues because he was unable to properly chew his food. (Id.). Also, he could not see properly without his eyeglasses. (Id.). He was without his eyeglasses and dentures until May 27, 2017. (Id.).

         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the action into the following Counts:

Count 1:Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendants because Plaintiff had difficulty eating without his dentures resulting in digestion and constipation issues and he could not see properly without his eyeglasses.
Count 2:Property loss claim for the three months Plaintiff was without his dentures and eyeglasses.

         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. The designations do not constitute an opinion regarding their merit. Any other intended claim that has not been recognized by the Court is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pleaded under the Twombly pleading standard.[1]

         Preliminary Dismissals

         Defendants Warden Brookhart, IDOC Director Jeffreys, C/O Hicks, C/O Vaughn, and John/Jane Doe are not referenced in the statement of claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Complaint must include a short, plain statement of the case against each individual. Merely naming a party in the caption of a Complaint is not enough to state a claim against him. Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Because Plaintiff failed to allege specific acts of wrongdoing by these individuals, the personal involvement requirement necessary for Section 1983 liability is not met. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995).

         Additionally, Warden Brookhart and IDOC Director Jeffreys cannot be held liable based solely on their positions as administrators as the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to section 1983 actions. Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (2001); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Warden Brookhart, ...


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.