The opinion of the court was delivered by: Geraldine Soat Brown United States Magistrate Judge
Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Scott Hildreth filed a fourth amended complaint alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants have moved to dismiss that complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Defs.' Mot.) [Dkt 64.] For the reasons set out below, the defendants' motion is granted as to Executive Director Godinez. In all other respects it is denied.
Plaintiff Scott Hildreth, who was then a pretrial detainee at the Cook County Jail, initially filed this action pro se. [Dkt 9.] Counsel appointed to represent him filed an amended complaint. [Dkt 8, 11.] Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted, but Hildreth was given leave to replead. [Dkt 41.] Second, third and fourth amended complaints were filed, and the second and fourth complaints were followed by motions to dismiss. [Dkt 42, 54, 58, 63, 64] The present motion to dismiss addresses the fourth amended complaint [dkt 63], which is referred to herein as the "Complaint."*fn1
The Complaint consists of two counts: a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl.) Three defendants are included in both counts: Cook County, the Sheriff of Cook County, and the Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections ("CCDOC") Salvador Godinez. The claim under § 1983 adds Superintendent "Thomas," Correctional Officer "Wright" and Correctional Officer "Mason" as defendants. Hildreth states that he will need discovery to obtain the full identify of those three individuals. (Compl. ¶ 3.)
Defendants now move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint. The motion raises two issues:
1. Are the allegations of the Complaint sufficient to plead claims under the ADA and §1983?
2. Are the allegations of the Complaint sufficient to plead those claims against these defendants?
A complaint will withstand a motion to dismiss [under Rule 12(b)(6)] if it provides a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief that is also sufficient to provide the defendant with fair notice of the claim and its basis. In order to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief, however, the pleader must show through his allegations that it is plausible, rather than merely speculative, that he is entitled to relief.
INEOS Polymers, Inc. v. BASF Catalysts, 553 F.3d 491, 497 (7th Cir. 2009) (citations and quotations omitted). Although that standard does not require heightened fact pleading, it does require the complaint to contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-556 (2007). In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court views the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and drawing all possible inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).