United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Santiago Vance, an inmate in Southwestern Illinois
Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of
his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff requests monetary compensation and staff
retraining. 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
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.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary
alleges that on March 2, 2017 he received mail regarding a
sensitive matter from the Administrative Review Board
(“ARB”) and that mail was given to him opened.
(Doc. 1, p. 4).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into a single count.
The parties and the Court will use this designation in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court:
Count 1 - Plaintiff's mail from the ARB
was opened outside his presence on a single occasion in
violation of the First Amendment.
claim fails for multiple reasons. First of all, Plaintiff has
named Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center as a
defendant, but a correctional center is not a proper
defendant. The Supreme Court has held that “neither a
State nor its officials acting in their official capacities
are ‘persons' under § 1983.” Will v.
Mich. Dep't of State Police,491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
See also Wynn v. Southward,251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th
Cir.2001) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in
federal court for money damages); Billman v. Ind.
Dep't of Corr.,56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir.1995)
(state Department of Corrections is immune from suit by
virtue of Eleventh Amendment); Hughes v. Joliet Corr.
Ctr.,931 F.2d 425, 427 (7th Cir.1991) (same);
Santiago v. Lane,894 F.2d 219, 220 n. 3 (7th
Cir.1990) (same). The IDOC is not a “person, ”
who is amenable to suit under § 1983. Likewise,