United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
BILLY McDADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a pretrial detainee, alleges constitutional violations under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, at the Rock Island County Jail
(“Jail”). The case is before the Court for a
merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing
the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as
true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir.
2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are
insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”
Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th
Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
While the pleading standard does not require “detailed
factual allegations”, it requires “more than an
accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx.
588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
alleges that on October 31, 2016, around the lunch period, he
was in a comatose-like sleep. When he awoke, his rectum was
sore, wet, and smelled of shampoo. Plaintiff appears to infer
that he was the victim of a sexual assault as he claims that
drugs might have been placed in his food by kitchen staff or
another inmate. Plaintiff grieved the matter and met with
investigators whom, he claims, did not believe him. Plaintiff
claims that he was pressured and changed his story, without
providing any detail.
February 10, 2017, Plaintiff once again awoke with a sore
rectum. He indicates that he was too ashamed to disclose the
matter, particularly as he had been caught
“snooling” [sp]. Plaintiff filed another
grievance, but this time the investigators refused to look
into the matter. Plaintiff claims that his blood flow is now
irregular and he fears he has contracted a sexually
23, 2017, prisoners were being escorted to see visitors
during visiting hours. Plaintiff claims that when he stopped
to assist another inmate, Officer Prime told him to stop.
Officer Primer accused Plaintiff of attacking another officer
and threatened to mace him. He cuffed Plaintiff and allegedly
slammed him into a wall. Officer O'Melia also responded,
grabbing Plaintiff's right arm and, with his right hand,
pushing down on Plaintiff's shoulder. The officers
allegedly escorted Plaintiff to a suicide watch cell where
they struck him further and denied him medical treatment.
allegations of sexual assault are too vague to state a
cognizable claim. He does not appear certain that he was
sexually assaulted, does not identify anyone whom he holds
responsible or claim that jail staff failed to protect him.
Furthermore, Plaintiff cannot plead unrelated claims in the
same complaint. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,
607 (7th Cir. 2007), “[u]nrelated claims against
different defendants belong in different suits.” As a
result, Plaintiff's claims as to the alleged assaults on
October 13, 2016 and February 10, 2017, are dismissed without
prejudice to Plaintiff filing them as separate claims. He is
cautioned, however, that if the claims are too vague they
will, again, be dismissed and he will remain responsible for
the filing fees.
does, however, state a cognizable claim that Officers Prime
and O'Melia exerted excessive force against him.
Plaintiff makes only a conclusory claim that they failed to
provide him medical treatment, without identifying any
serious medical need. This claim is dismissed though
Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to replead.
is the additional issue that Plaintiff names only the Jail
which is not an entity amenable to suit. Wright v. Porter
County, 2013 WL 1176199, * 2 (N.D.Ind. Mar. 19, 2013)(a
jail “is a building, not a ‘person' or even a
policy-making body that can be sued for constitutional
violations.”) The Rock Island County Jail will be
dismissed as a Defendant and Officers Prime and O'Melia
will be added.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
case shall proceed on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment
Due Process claims of excessive force against Officers Prime
and O'Melia. Plaintiff may, within 30 days, replead his
deliberate indifference claim. If he does so, he is to title
the complaint Amended Complaint. It is to contain all of his
allegations against all defendants without reference to a
prior pleading. Any claims not identified will not be
included in the case, except in the Court's discretion
upon motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of
court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
Defendant Rock Island County Jail is DISMISSED and Defendants
Prime and O'Melia are to be added.
Plaintiff requests the recruitment of pro bono counsel 
but does not indicate that he has attempted to obtain counsel
on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55
(7th Cir. 2007).  is DENIED. In the event that Plaintiff
renews his motion for appointment of counsel, he is to
provide copies of the letters sent to, and received from,
Plaintiff files  requesting that a subpoena issue to
preserve video footage, presumably related to the alleged May
23, 2017, excessive force. While the Court will not authorize
a subpoena, it will order that the Jail preserve any related
video footage still in its possession. A copy of this Order
is to be sent to the Warden of the Rock Island County Jail.
The Warden is requested to file a response within 21 days,
indicating whether such footage exists and where it is being
stored.  is GRANTED to that extent.
Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to this
District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit
and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3)
a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this Order.
5. If a
Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of Service to the
Clerk within 30 days after the Waiver is sent, the Court will
take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that
Defendant and will require that Defendant pay the full costs
of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(d)(2). If a Defendant no longer works at the address
provided by Plaintiff, the entity for which Defendant worked
at the time identified in the Complaint shall provide to the
Clerk Defendant's current work address, or, if not known,
Defendant's forwarding address. This information will be
used only for purposes of ...