Bebo v. Martin et al
Filing
8
ORDER : This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court will not enter final judgment at this time, instead allowing Plaintiff until September 10, 2012, to file an amended complaint stating a viable claim. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by the deadline, final judgment dismissing this action with prejudice shall automatically enter, as Plaintiffs failure to act will demonstrate that he has failed to prosecute his case. (Action due by 9/10/2012). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/20/2012. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES A. BEBO,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. PHIL MARTIN,
ELAINE HARDY,
CHRIS BROOKS, and
DR. JAMES FENOGLIO,
Defendants.
Case No. 11-CV-0931-MJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff James A. Bebo, currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center,
has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has named four
prison medical personnel as defendants and attached a collection of documentation to his form
complaint: grievances, correspondence, and pharmacy prescription slips. He appears to be
dissatisfied with the medical care provide in the prison. See Doc. 1.
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
1
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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). 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). Conversely, a complaint
is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although the Court does not hold a pro se litigant to the same standards as an
attorney, the Court cannot fashion a complaint for a plaintiff. It is not for the Court to review
Plaintiff’s documentation and decide what claims Plaintiff should pursue. Therefore, this action
is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend.
The Court will not enter final judgment at this time, instead allowing Plaintiff
until September 10, 2012, to file an amended complaint stating a viable claim. If Plaintiff fails
to file an amended complaint by the deadline, final judgment dismissing this action with
prejudice shall automatically enter, as Plaintiff’s failure to act will demonstrate that he has failed
to prosecute his case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 20, 2012
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?