United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is presently housed at the
Madison County Jail. Plaintiff brings claims pertaining to an
allegedly unconstitutional interrogation, at the Alton Police
Department, occurring in August 2015. In connection with his
claim, Plaintiff names Joe Splittorf (a city of Alton
detective), Michael O'Neil (a city of Alton detective),
the City of Alton Police Department, and the City of Alton.
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.
Complaint must also comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a pleading to set forth a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” See FED. R. CIV. P.
8(a)(2). See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court in Twombly clarified
that the Rule 8 standard does not require detailed factual
allegations. Id. However, it demands more than bare
legal conclusions and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action. Id; see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“the pleading
standard Rule 8 ... demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice”); Alexander v. United States, 721
F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (conclusory statements and
labels are insufficient). A complaint must, at a minimum,
give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests; and the factual allegations must
raise a right to relief above the speculative level. See
Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599,
602-03 (7th Cir. 2009);
claims that unspecified constitutional violations occurred
when O'Neil and Splittorf interrogated him at the Alton
Police Department. (Doc. 1, p. 5). The interrogation
allegedly occurred from August 12, 2015 through August 14,
2015. Id. Plaintiff contends the interrogation was
“egregious” and that the Defendants' conduct
“crossed all boundaries of decency and
professionalism.” Plaintiff alleges he experienced
emotional trauma as a result of the interrogation.
of Certain Defendants
has named the Alton Police Department and the City of Alton
as defendants in this action. A police department is not a
suable entity apart from the city which operates it. See
West By and Through Norris v. Waymire, 114 F.3d 646,
646-47 (7th Cir. 1997). ...