United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
BRANDON V. ARRIAGA, #M48595, Plaintiff,
C/O THOMPSON, LT. WOLFE, JAMIE KAMIET, and C/O ENGLAND, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Brandon Arriaga, an inmate in Pontiac Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights that allegedly
occurred at Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”). In his Complaint, Plaintiff
claims he was attacked and harassed during his incarceration
at Pinckneyville in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc.
1). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, in order to state a
claim, a pleading must provide “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). “Rule 8(a)
requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward, so
that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold
coin from a bucket of mud.” United States ex rel.
Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th
Cir. 2003). Rule 8 also demands that a pleading contain
“a demand for the relief sought, which may include
relief in the alternative or different types of
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(3).
are also required to associate specific defendants with
specific claims, so that defendants are put on notice of the
claims brought against them and so they can properly answer
the complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Merely
invoking the name of a potential defendant is not sufficient
to state a claim against that individual. See Collins v.
Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Moreover,
vague references to a group of defendants, without specific
allegations tying the individual defendants to the alleged
unconstitutional conduct, do not raise a genuine issue of
material fact with respect to those defendants. See Alejo
v. Heller, 328 F.3d 930, 936 (7th Cir. 2003) (finding
dismissal of named defendant proper where plaintiff failed to
allege defendant's personal involvement in the alleged
wrongdoings); Starzenski v. City of Elkhart, 87 F.3d
872, 879 (7th Cir. 1996).
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff does not include a statement of
claim, nor does he include a request for relief. In his list
of defendants, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Thompson
harassed him “before the access of force then multiple
C/Os jumped him.” (Doc. 1, p. 1). He also notes in his
list of defendants that Defendant Wolfe “allowed
officers to beat [him].” (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff also
attached two documents labeled “affidavits” at
the end of the Complaint. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). The first
affidavit is signed by Dean Hampton. (Doc. 1, p. 7). It
claims that on July 8, 2017, Hampton witnessed “many
staff member of Pinckneyville C.C. make fun of Brandon
Arriaga” when Arriaga told a C/O that he was hearing
voices and requested a mental health doctor. Id.
Hampton claims that a C/O cursed at Arriaga and told him that
he had “something good on [his] tray.”
Id. Arriaga then exclaimed that “they put bugs
in [his] food, ” and the C/Os laughed at him.
next document labeled affidavit was not signed, but it states
that it was written by Arriaga. (Doc. 1, p. 8). In it,
Plaintiff claims that he has a current charge of aggravated
battery on a peace officer at Pinckneyville, but that he
“was presently hearing voices in [his] head and [he]
was being harassed by officers.” Id. Plaintiff
claims that he has bipolar, schizophrenia, ADHD, and PTSD.
Id. Plaintiff further claims that he does not
remember any assault, only arguing with staff after
“officers” brutally beat him. Id.
later filed a separate statement of claim and request for
relief in this action. (Doc. 3). He expands on his
allegations in the statement of claim, claiming that he was
“brutally attacked by officers, ” tortured by
bugs being put in his food, smacked, kicked, and kneed in the
face, attacked by Orange Crush with a wooden stick, and his
food was taken off of his trays. (Doc. 3, p. 1). On the ...