United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge
Frederick Todd, a detainee in St. Clair County Jail
(“Jail”), brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
claims the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical issues and subjected him to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. (Doc. 10). 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 Amended Complaint and any supporting
exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to allow this case
to proceed past the threshold stage.
Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: On July 23, 2017, Plaintiff could not breathe,
so he asked Defendant April for his asthma inhaler. (Doc. 10,
p. 5). April denied Plaintiff's request. Id.
“They had [Plaintiff's] inhaler but did not let
[him] use it.” Id. “Wexford ignored
[Plaintiff's] risk at the” Jail. Id. That
same day, Plaintiff was housed in the Gym-Recreation Area,
which was an unsafe area to sleep. Id.
30, 2017, Plaintiff was moved to another living area.
Id. In this area, the shower had black mold in it.
Id. Breathing in the black mold started to trigger
Plaintiff's asthma, but the medical staff did nothing.
Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Doc. 10, p.
analyzing Plaintiff's allegations, the Court finds it
appropriate to address Plaintiff's failure to include
specific allegations against Defendants Maintenance
Department and St. Clair County Jail in the body of his
Amended Complaint, despite his having listed them among the
defendants. Plaintiffs are 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).
Where a plaintiff has not included a defendant in his
statement of claim, the defendant cannot be said to be
adequately put on notice of which claims in the complaint, if
any, are directed against him. Furthermore, 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). And in the
case of those defendants in supervisory positions, the
doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to
§ 1983 actions. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266
F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
St. Clair County Jail is not an appropriate defendant in this
case. A jail is not a “person” under § 1983.
Smith v. Knox Cnty. Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th
Cir. 2012); Powell v. Cook Cnty. Jail, 814 F.Supp.
757, 758 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Additionally, neither it nor its