United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
BILLY McDADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case was originally filed by four co-Plaintiffs, Brian
Cooley, Herman Nitz, Jr., Robert Loveland and Edwin
Rodriguez. Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Nitz subsequently
voluntarily dismissed their claims. This case proceeds with
Plaintiffs Cooley and Loveland asserting a convoluted 48-page
complaint against 10 named Defendants and additional John and
Jane Doe Doctors.
case is now before the Court for a merit review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court
accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing
them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour,
729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory
statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be
provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721
F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
complaint is interspersed with unrelated filings, and
contains many allegations brought by former Plaintiff's
Nitz and Rodriguez. In addition, Plaintiffs name a variety of
entities and individuals not amenable to suit. They name
Western Illinois Correctional Center (“Western”)
which is a state agency and not a “person” which
can be named in a § 1983 action. Thomas v.
Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012).
also seek to name a private attorney, Alan Mills, for failing
to provide them a copy of the complaint in Rasho v.
Walker, 07-1298 (C.D.Ill. Nov. 7, 2007). Rasho
was a suit by seriously mentally ill prisoners, brought as a
class action. The Plaintiffs here are members of that class.
Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant Mills was a state
actor and, regardless, the failure to provide a copy of a
complaint does not state a constitutional claim. Defendant
Mills is DISMISSED.
name Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Illinois
Governor Bruce Rauner, apparently in their official
capacities. The Eleventh Amendment, however, bars § 1983
claims for money damages against state officials. Wynn v.
Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir. 2001);
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985).
Plaintiffs' official capacity claim against Defendants
Madigan and Rauner is DISMISSED with prejudice. Even if
Plaintiffs' complaint is construed as an individual
capacity claim against Defendants Madigan and Rauner, it
fails as Plaintiffs do not claim that Defendants personally
participated in the deprivations. Sanville v.
McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir.2001)
(“[s]ection 1983 liability is predicated on fault, so
to be liable, a defendant must be “personally
responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional
also request injunctive relief which may properly be asserted
against state officials, even though a claim for money
damages may not. Ames v. Randle, 933 F.Supp.2d 1028,
1038 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (“[s]ection 1983 permits
official-capacity suits that seek injunctive relief against
state officials). Here, however, Plaintiff name Defendants
Madigan and Rauner who are not prison officials who could
provide injunctive relief as to the conditions of
confinement. Grayson v. Goetting, No.
15-CV-00198-NJR, 2015 WL 887800, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 27,
2015) (“the proper parties in a claim for injunctive
relief include the supervisory government officials who would
be responsible for ensuring injunctive relief is carried
the alleged inadequate mental health treatment, the court may
not consider it here as Plaintiffs have already received this
relief through the class settlement in Rasho which
provides for comprehensive changes in IDOC's delivery of
mental health care, subject to identified implementation
dates. See Court's May 23, 2016 Order in
Rasho. As there are no surviving claims against
them, Defendants Western, Madigan and Rauner are DISMISSED.
allege inadequate mental health treatment and inhumane
conditions of confinement against IDOC Director Baldwin,
Warden Korte, Wexford, an unidentified Wexford Director,
Cindy Hobrook, Wexford employee Shoemaker, Wexford employee
Ashcraft and John and Jane Doe psychologists and
psychiatrists. Plaintiffs do not, however, specify the
particular conditions suffered by each of them or the dates
on which they occurred. The also fail to plead the
particulars of their deliberate indifference claim as to any
of these Defendants.
complaint is insufficient to place Defendants on notice of
the claims against them or to provide enough information to
identify the Doe Defendants. See Ross Brothers
Construction Co., Inc, v. International Steel Services,
Inc. 283 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir.2002) (a complaint must
provide adequate notice of plaintiff's claims against the
defendant). The complaint is dismissed, though Plaintiff will
be given an opportunity to replead.
request for class action status is denied as, while
Plaintiffs may represent themselves, they may not represent
others. See 28 U.S.C. §1654; Lewis v.
Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 830 (7th Cir.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this
order to file a “First Amended Complaint”. The
Amended Complaint is not to include any claims by former
Plaintiffs Nitz or Rodriguez. The amended complaint is to
identify the particular claims each Plaintiff has against
each Defendant, named and unnamed, as to the failure to
provide adequate mental health treatment and inhumane
conditions of confinement. Failure to file an amended
complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without
prejudice, for failure to state a claim. The official
capacity claim against Defendants Madigan and Rauner is
DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendants Madigan, Rauner,
Attorney Mills and Western Illinois Correctional Center are
Plaintiffs' Motions for Status  and  are rendered
MOOT. Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment  is
DENIED as Defendants have not been ...