United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JAMES R. WEBB, JR., Plaintiff,
JESSE YOUNG, MR. PRUSODGICH, and SHERRIFF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge.
James R. Webb, Jr., currently confined at the Alton Mental
Health Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights
that allegedly occurred when he was housed at the Franklin
County Jail. Plaintiff seeks removal from probation, monetary
damages, and declarative relief.
January 6, 2017, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed
the instant action. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleged that while
incarcerated at the Franklin County Jail, officers Young and
Prusodgick saw Plaintiff hanging from his neck. (Doc. 1, p.
5). Instead of immediately helping Plaintiff, the officers
slammed Plaintiff's cell door and left Plaintiff hanging
from his neck for approximately fifteen minutes. Id.
Plaintiff alleged that he currently suffers from physical and
mental impairments as a result. Id. The only
defendant identified in the original Complaint was the
Franklin County Jail. Because a jail is not a legal entity
capable of being sued under § 1983, the Court dismissed
the action without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Doc.
10). In the Order of Dismissal, the Court expressly advised
Plaintiff as follows: (1) if Plaintiff intended to sue either
of the officers discussed in the body of the original
Complaint, he must identify those officers as defendants in
the caption of his amended complaint; (2) the amended
complaint must stand on its own without reference to any
prior pleading; and (3) the amended complaint should include
information regarding the Plaintiff's legal status at the
time of the alleged constitutional deprivation (i.e.
was Plaintiff an arrestee, pretrial detainee, or a prisoner).
timely filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15). The First
Amended Complaint is now before the Court for a preliminary
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
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.
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.
First Amended Complaint identifies three potentially
appropriate defendants: (1) Jessee Young (Franklin County
Deputy), Mr. Prusodgich (Franklin County Deputy), and the
Sherriff of Franklin County, Illinois. The statement of
claim, however, is entirely inadequate. Plaintiff merely
states as follows: “When the officers found me, they
should of cut me down immediately. But they left me hanging
for over 15 min[utes], causing Brain damage. Improper
protocol.” (Doc. 1, p. 5).
First Amended Complaint does not include any of the factual
allegations included in the original Complaint. As the Court
explained in its prior Order of Dismissal, the Court does not
accept piecemeal pleadings. The First Amended Complaint must
stand on its own without reference to any previous pleadings.
The single allegation in the First Amended Complaint is
insufficient, even under the liberal pleading standards of
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8, to put Defendants on notice of
Plaintiff's claims so they can file an answer. Higgs
v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir .2002) (A
plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to put each defendant
on notice of the wrongdoing with which he is being charged so
that he can file an answer.). For this reason, the First
Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
dismissal, however, shall be without prejudice and with leave
to amend. With respect to the Second Amended Complaint, ...