United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Gilbert U.S. District Judge.
Christopher Wells, an inmate in the Jefferson County Justice
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages. This case is now before
the Court for a preliminary review of the Amended Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening - The court shall review, before docketing, if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after
docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the court shall
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026- 27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
careful review of the First Amended Complaint and any
supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to
exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is
subject to summary dismissal.
First Amended Complaint
originally filed this case on June 17, 2016, however, the
only Defendant listed was the City of Mount Vernon, and so
the Court dismissed the Complaint on August 10, 2016 for
failure to associate specific defendants with specific
allegations. (Doc. 1) (Doc. 7). Plaintiff filed the First
Amended Complaint on August 31, 2016. (Doc. 8).
statement of claim refers to “C.W., ” which the
Court presumes stands for “Christopher Wells, ”
the plaintiff here. The Court notes that while Plaintiff
complains of things that happened while he was a minor, he is
no longer a minor and has not sought leave of the court to
proceed as an unnamed party. The Court presumes that all
references to “C.W” refer to Plaintiff.
alleges that on May 31, 2011, Bullard arrested him. (Doc. 1,
p. 5). At the time, Plaintiff was 15 years old.
(Id.). Bullard did not attempt contact
Plaintiff's parents or guardians prior to questioning
him. (Id.). Bullard coerced Plaintiff into
incriminating himself by falsely telling Plaintiff that if he
confessed and showed remorse, his case would be kept in the
juvenile court system. (Id.). That statement was
later suppressed via motion. (Id.).
on the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, the Court
finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 2
counts. The parties and the Court will use these
designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial ...