United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN Chief Judge United States District Court
Patrick Meyer, currently incarcerated in Robinson
Correctional Center, brings this pro se action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. According to the Complaint, a
correctional officer has been verbally harassing and making
fun of Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends the officer's
conduct is causing mental anguish and seeks monetary relief.
In connection with these claims, Plaintiff sues the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), Robinson
Correctional Center, and Shane Pica, a correctional officer.
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.
October 18, 2016, Plaintiff was moved to 2B Wing. (Doc. 1, p.
5). After being moved to this wing, Plaintiff alleges Pica, a
correctional officer, began verbally harassing and
“making fun” of him. Id. Specifically,
Plaintiff contends Pica made comments such as: “Oh my
feet hurt soo soo much, I can barely walk, oh my ears I can
barely hear.” Id. Pica also made harassing
comments regarding Plaintiff's depression. Id.
Plaintiff feels intimidated by the comments. Id. As
a result, he often remains in his cell and has requested
psychological treatment. In connection with these claims,
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
of IDOC and Robinson Correctional Center
preliminary matter, the Court notes that, in addition to
Officer Pica, Plaintiff has named as defendants Robinson
Correctional Center and IDOC. Neither Defendant, however, is
a proper defendant with respect to Plaintiff's claim for
damages. IDOC is a state agency. “State agencies are
not ‘persons' for purposes of the Civil Rights
Act.” Toledo, Peoria & Wester R. Co. v. State
of Ill. Dept. of Transp., 744 F.2d 1296, 1298 (7th Cir.
1984). Similarly, Robinson Correctional Center is a division
of a state agency (the Department of Corrections) and is not
a “person” within meaning of § 1983. See
Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
66-67, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989);
Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576, 580 (7th Cir.
2003); Smith v. Gomez, 550 F.3d 613, 618 (7th Cir.
IDOC and Robinson Correctional Center shall be dismissed from