United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, E.D
September 27, 1985
MARVIN R. SITTIG, JR., PLAINTIFF,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bua, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Marvin R. Sittig, a resident at the Dixon
Correctional Center in Dixon, Illinois, brings this pro se
civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named as
defendants are the Illinois Department of Corrections, the
Sheridan Correctional Center, the Dixon Correctional Center, and
Illinois Department of Corrections Director Michael P. Lane.
Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief for his alleged
failure to receive adequate protection from attacks by other
inmates. He alleges two physical assaults. The first occurred at
the Sheridan Correctional Center in May 1984 and the second in
the Dixon Correctional Center in December 1984. Before the Court
is defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.
The Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff's claim for damages
against three of the parties he names as defendants in this
action. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57
L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978); Garrett v. Illinois, 612 F.2d 1038, 1040
(7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 821, 101 S.Ct. 79, 66
L.Ed.2d 23 (1980). As agencies of the state, these entities are
immune from suit because Illinois has not waived its sovereign
immunity as to proceedings against it in federal court. Moreover,
because state agencies are not persons within the meaning of the
Civil Rights Act, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Sittig's
claims against the Illinois Department of Corrections and two of
its correctional facilities. See Toledo, Peoria, & W.R. Co. v.
Illinois, 744 F.2d 1296, 1298-99 (7th Cir. 1984).
Plaintiff's claim against the individual defendant Michael P.
Lane is also deficient. To the extent he seeks relief against
Lane in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, his claim is again barred by the
Eleventh Amendment because an official capacity suit is, in
essence, a suit against the entity of which the officer is an
agent. See Kentucky v. Graham, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 3099,
3105, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Owen v. Lash, 682 F.2d 648, 654
(7th Cir. 1982). To state a claim against Lane in his personal
capacity, Sittig must allege facts to show that Lane caused a
deprivation of constitutional rights alleged in the complaint.
See Graham, 105 S.Ct. at 3106. Sittig's complaint, however, is
wholly silent as to any conduct on the part of Lane. Instead, he
attributes the alleged lapse of security to administrative
officials at the two institutions where he has been incarcerated.
Because these officials are not named as defendants in the
complaint, we need not here address the adequacy of his
Accordingly, the Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss
without prejudice to Sittig's right to file an amended complaint
within 30 days. The amended complaint must name as defendants
those personally involved in the alleged failure to provide
Sittig with adequate security. In addition, the allegations of
the amended complaint must link those defendants to the alleged
attacks and explain how those defendants failed to take adequate
steps to protect him from attack by other inmates. Plaintiff is
directed to complete his complaint on the forms required by
General Rule 47 of this Court and to present the clerk with
sufficient copies to permit service on the defendants he names.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.