United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
Timothy Engel, an inmate at Shawnee Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff claims he was assaulted by various individuals at
Vienna Correctional Center in violation of the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
(Doc. 1). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: from November 13, 2016 to November 24, 2016,
Plaintiff was stabbed in his rib cage by
“Robert;” “Anderson” tried to stab
Plaintiff in his neck; “Hernandez” threw a punch
behind Plaintiff's head; “Stewart” threw
objects at Plaintiff's head and body; and “Lt.
Reid” attacked Plaintiff twice behind his back while he
was handcuffed. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). Plaintiff also claims that
“Anderson, Hernandez, Stewart, [and] Fowler tempted
[sic] to kill [him] . . . while officials
refused/denied to move [him].” (Doc. 1, p. 5). The
Complaint further states that after officials and prisoners
senselessly threatened and sought to fight and rape
Plaintiff, he was forced to “talk crazy and curse at
times just for self-defense.” (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
outset, it is clear that Plaintiff has not named an
appropriate defendant in this case, as the only named
defendant is “People.” (Doc. 1). Plaintiff cannot
maintain a civil rights action against “The People of
the State of Illinois, ” if this was his intent. In an
action brought pursuant to § 1983, a plaintiff
“must show that the alleged [constitutional]
deprivation was committed by a person acting under
color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988) (emphasis added). If Plaintiff's
constitutional rights have been violated during his
imprisonment, he must then pursue his claim against the
prison official whose conduct caused the violation, not
against the State of Illinois or its entire population.
though he has named several individuals in his statement of
claim, Plaintiff has not listed any of these parties in his
case caption. When parties are not listed in the caption,
this Court will not treat them as defendants. 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”). Plaintiff is
advised that, in order to maintain a § 1983 case, he
must describe what each named defendant did (or
failed to do), that violated his constitutional rights.
these reasons, “People” will be dismissed with
prejudice. Because “People” is the only named
defendant in this action, this case ...