United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JAMES R. WEBB, JR., Plaintiff,
FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STENGEL, District Judge
James R. Webb, Jr., an inmate in Jackson County Jail, brings
this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks removal
from probation, disability, and monetary damages for pain and
suffering in relation to constitutional violations that
allegedly occurred when he was being held at the Franklin
County Jail in May 2016.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
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 Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary
22, 2016, when Plaintiff was being held at the Franklin
County Jail,  he was found hanging by his neck in his
cell. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Officers Young and Prusodgick saw
Plaintiff hanging from his neck. Id. Instead of
immediately helping Plaintiff, the officers slammed
Plaintiff's cell door and left Plaintiff hanging from his
neck for approximately fifteen minutes. Id. The
incident was recorded, and Plaintiff has sixteen witnesses,
including five officers. Id. As a result of the
officers' conduct, Plaintiff is physically and mentally
Court begins with a note about the parties at issue in this
case. The Complaint identifies officers Young and Prusodgick
as the individuals responsible for the alleged constitutional
violation. These individuals are not named in the caption or
they will not be treated as defendants, and any claims
against them should be considered dismissed without
prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (noting that
the title of the complaint “must name all the
parties”); Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d
551, 551-52 (7th Cir.2005) (to be properly considered a party
a defendant must be “specif[ied] in the
caption”); Id. at 553 (“[It is]
unacceptable for a court to add litigants on its own motion.
Selecting defendants is a task for the plaintiff, not the
discussed more fully below, Plaintiff's Complaint shall
be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. If
Plaintiff desires to bring a claim against either of the
named officers, he must identify them as defendants in the
caption of his amended complaint, and the body of the ...