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.

Hummons v. Unknown Federal Agents

United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division

April 7, 2015

JOHN HUMMONS, Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENTS, Defendants.

MERIT REVIEW ORDER

JOE BILLY McDADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges a Bivens actions against unknown federal agents. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff claims he is being held at the Jerome Combs Detention Center, (JCDC), which he identifies as a federal facility. JCDC, however, is the Kankakee County jail and is not a federal facility. Plaintiff claims that his telephone calls to his wife and his lawyer have been blocked. He also claims that his incoming and outgoing mail has been diverted, delayed and read by officers at the jail. Plaintiff, however, does not name as defendants any jail officials or corrections officers. Instead, he claims that this unconstitutional conduct is being directed by unknown FBI or ATF officers. He does not indicate why he believes federal agents are involved or give any detail which could identify those federal actors causing the alleged deprivation.

Plaintiff, at this juncture, fails to state a claim for which relief might be given as his complaint is unduly vague. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed, with leave to replead within 30 days. If Plaintiff believes his constitutional rights have been affronted at JCDC he should name those individuals at the jail whom he believes have blocked his telephone calls or tampered with his mail. If Plaintiff does not know the names of these individuals he may identify them as “John Does” but will be required to give enough information that these individuals can be later identified for purposes of service of process. If Plaintiff believes that the JCDC defendants are operating at the behest of FBI or ATF agents, he should indicate his reasons for so believing. He may name them in a Bivens count but, again, must provide enough detail so that the identities of these federal agents may be ascertained for service of process.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted.


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.