Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Webbb v. Jail

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 8, 2017

JAMES R. WEBB, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          ROSEN STENGEL, District Judge

         Plaintiff 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.

         This 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 such relief.

         An 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. 2009).

         Upon 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 dismissal.

         The Complaint

         On May 22, 2016, when Plaintiff was being held at the Franklin County Jail, [1] 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 impaired.

         The 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 defendant list.

         Accordingly, 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 judge.”).

         As 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.