Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Colley v. Peoria County Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION


March 2, 2010

JEREMY COLLEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PEORIA COUNTY JAIL, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy McDADE United States District Judge

ORDER

On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff submitted his Complaint and a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1 & 2). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court may allow a plaintiff to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees.*fn1 However, § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) also requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint "at any time" if it finds that the action "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Therefore, the Court reviews Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether it states a claim upon which relief can be granted, bearing in mind the liberality with which pro se pleadings are construed.

In his Complaint, which is submitted on a form that is "designed primarily for pro se prisoners challenging the constitutionality of their conditions of confinement," Plaintiff's statement of his claim is "being on the floor for 30 days in the County Jail on Sept. 30-Oct. 30 on the floor." (Doc. 1 at 1, 5). Thus, it appears that Plaintiff is challenging, under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments, the conditions of his confinement at the Peoria County Jail between September 30 and October 30, 2009.*fn2

Though the Court construes pro se pleadings liberally, Plaintiff has not even alleged what injury he suffered from "being on the floor," and being on the floor is not so terrible a situation that the Court can assume that Plaintiff was harmed by it. Therefore, his Complaint as it currently stands is insufficient to state a claim, and the Court cannot grant his Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis on the basis of it; if it granted the Motion, the Court would be required to then immediately dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Rather than take this inefficient path, the Court grants Plaintiff the chance to amend his Complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Petitioner is not required to make the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment "conditions of confinement" claim mentioned above, though this is the claim that appears to best fit Plaintiff's allegation. Indeed, Plaintiff need not even choose a particular legal theory under which to proceed, but he must allege enough facts to give the Court and Defendant fair notice of his complaints, and to show that his claim to relief is "plausible." Bissessur v. Indiana University Board of Trustees, 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008)).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff is allowed 21 days from the date of this Order in which to submit an Amended Complaint that states a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis will be considered when the Plaintiff submits his Amended Complaint.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.