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.

Wilbourn v. Centralia Correctional Center

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 25, 2017

D'MARCO WILBOURN, #B-88922, Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRALIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, WARDEN, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONS, and MARCUS RIDDICK, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HERNDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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 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).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that the Complaint is subject to dismissal.

         The Complaint

         In his 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, [1] 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.

         Plaintiff 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).

         Discussion

         The 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.

         Plaintiff 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 ...


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.