United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
D'Marco Wilbourn, an inmate in East Moline Correctional
Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for deprivations of his constitutional rights that allegedly
occurred at Centralia Correctional Center. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff claims that he was sexually assaulted by Defendant
Riddick and did not receive the rape kit lab results from the
assault for almost two years. (Doc. 1). 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 that the Complaint is subject to dismissal.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: on March 16, 2015 while Plaintiff was
incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center, Defendant
Marcus Riddick raped Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Riddick was
Plaintiff's cellmate at the time. Id. Plaintiff
did not file a grievance on this issue,  but he did report
the incident to internal affairs at Centralia. (Doc. 1, pp.
3, 5). Riddick was placed in segregation under investigative
status. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff was also placed under
investigative status in the Centralia Health Care Unit.
Id. This confinement lasted for a month and a half,
and was to last until the lab results from the rape kit came
back with the DNA of Plaintiff's assailant. Id.
After Plaintiff had spent a month and a half in confinement,
he was transferred to Graham Correctional Center.
Id. He was then paroled on November 5, 2015 without
having received the lab results from the rape kit.
Id. Plaintiff was waiting to sue until he got
positive results from the rape kit showing that Riddick was
the assailant. Id.
is now incarcerated at East Moline Correctional Center.
Id. On June 12, 2017, he received the results of the
rape kit that confirmed the DNA that was tested was that of
Riddick. Id. Plaintiff seeks justice “for
everything Inmate Marcus Riddick put [him] through physically
and mentally.” Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Court begins its § 1915A review with a note about the
parties at issue in this case. First, Plaintiff has named the
Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) as a
defendant. His claims against it are barred, however, because
IDOC, as a state agency, is not a “person” that
may be sued under § 1983. Thomas v. Illinois,
697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Will v. Mich.
Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989));
see also 42 U.S .C. § 1983 (“Every person
who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District
of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen
of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . .
.”). For the same reason, Plaintiff cannot maintain a
suit for damages against Centralia Correctional Center, as it
is a division of IDOC.
has also included Marcus Riddick, the inmate who allegedly
raped him, as a defendant in this lawsuit. A plaintiff cannot
proceed with a federal claim under § 1983 against a
non-state actor. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999); Gayman v.
Principal Fin. Servs., Inc., 311 F.3d 851, 852-53 ...