United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court for merit review of the pro se
Plaintiff's complaint 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 (7th Cir. 2103). 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. U.S., 721 F.3d 418,
422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated by
various individuals from the Montgomery County Sheriff's
Office, the Litchfield Police Department, Hillsboro Police
Department, the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC),
and Wexford Health Sources. Plaintiff has specifically
identified eleven Defendants, but has also listed numerous
John Doe Defendants.
says on July 1, 2015, he discovered the mother of his child
was “high on drugs.” (Comp, p. 2). When Plaintiff
tried to prevent Defendant Bobbie Jo Rolland from driving off
with their child, Plaintiff alleges she ran him over with a
van. Litchfield Police Officer Cory Bilyeu arrived on the
scene and arrested Plaintiff for Aggravated Domestic Battery.
Plaintiff says the officer refused to investigate the actions
of Ms. Rolland or arrest her for running him over.
says he told Defendant Bilyeu he was in pain, but the officer
refused to take him to the hospital. Instead, Plaintiff says
he was taken to the Hillsboro County Sheriff's Office.
There are several inconsistencies in Plaintiff's
complaint at this point. For instance, Plaintiff says
Defendant Bilyeu was a Litchfield City Police Officer, but
also claims the officer worked for the Montgomery County
Plaintiff says he again asked for medical care at Hillsboro,
but he was instead immediately taken to Graham Correctional
Center. Again, Plaintiff does not explain, but apparently he
was accused of a parole violation. Once at Graham, Plaintiff
says a nurse “refused to perform an MRI, and only
performed an x-ray.” (Comp., p. 5). Plaintiff also
alleges his repeated requests for examination by an outside
specialist were denied, and the Defendants either denied
“mediation and therapy and/or unjustifiably limit these
medications and therapy.” (Comp., p. 19).
finally alleges Defendants either refused to respond to his
grievances or refused to forward them to the appropriate
are several problems with Plaintiff's complaint. First,
Plaintiff has named some Defendants which cannot be sued
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. For instance, Plaintiff
cannot sue his child's mother because she is not a
“state actor.” See Wyatt v Cole, 504
U.S. 158, 161 (1992)(§1983's purpose is “to
deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to
deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed
rights...”). In addition, Plaintiff cannot sue the
Montgomery County Jail since a jail is not a person subject
to lawsuit pursuant to §1983. See Powell v Cook
County Jail, 814 F.Supp. 757, 758 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
Therefore, the Court will dismiss Defendant Bobbie Jo Roland
and the Montgomery County Jail.
it is well-settled that private citizens do not have a
constitutional right to have an individual criminally
prosecuted. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S.
614, 619 (1973); United States v. Batchelder, 442
U.S. 114, 124 (1979); Joseph v. Lewis, 95 F.3d 54,
1996 WL 460071 (5th Cir. July 30, 1996).
even if IDOC defendants did not properly investigate or
respond to grievances, this does not state a constitutional
violation. The Constitution requires no procedure at all, and
the failure of state prison officials to follow their own
procedures does not, standing alone, violate the
Constitution. Maust v. Headley, 959 F.2d 644, 648
(7th Cir.1992); Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091,
1100-01 (7th Cir.1982).
the Plaintiff has not explained how many of the alleged
Defendants are directly involved in his claims. In order to
hold an individual liable under Section 1983, Plaintiff must
“show that the defendants were personally responsible
for the deprivation of their rights.” Wilson v.
Warren Cty., Illinois, 2016 WL 3878215, at *3 (7th Cir.
2016). “A defendant is personally responsible ‘if
the conduct causing the constitutional deprivation occurs at
his direction or with his knowledge and consent.'”
Id. quoting Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561
(7th Cir. 1995). It is not sufficient to simply list several
John Does Defendants without explaining specifically how each
was involved in the Plaintiff's allegations.
addition, the mere fact that a defendant was a supervisor is
insufficient to establish liability because the doctrine of
respondeat superior (supervisor liability) does not
apply to actions filed under 42 USC §1983. See
Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d 871, 877 (7th Cir. 1992).
Therefore, the Court will dismiss IDOC Director John ...