Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanders v. Splittorf

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 23, 2017

ARYION SANDERS 90418, Plaintiff,
v.
JOE SPLITTORF, MICHAEL O'NEIL, CITY OF ALTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, and CITY OF ALTON, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is presently housed at the Madison County Jail.[1] 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.

         This 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 such relief.

         An 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. 2009).

         The 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);

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff 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.

         Discussion

         Dismissal of Certain Defendants

         Plaintiff 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). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.