United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Doug Allsup, a detainee in Madison County Jail (the
“Jail”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional
rights. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims he has been denied
access to court hearings, he has received threats from
guards, and his bond is unreasonable. (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 fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted and must be dismissed.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: on February 24, 2018, Plaintiff was pulled over
for driving under the influence. (Doc. 1, p. 5). “Other
than a first appearance in video court for a bond hearing,
Plaintiff has not been taken to court for any kind of
hearing.” Id. He has been away from family and
friends and is suffering severe financial loss. Id.
He has been denied access to the court on docket calls.
Id. Plaintiff's family contacted the circuit
clerk's office, and the response they received is that
the Jail said Plaintiff refused to go. Id. This is
false. Id. “Sheriff John Lakin . . . has
violated Plaintiff's rights” to due process, equal
protection, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
under the Fourteenth Amendment and Eighth Amendment.
Id. “Bond is unreasonable [at] $150,
requests that “an official grievance procedure be
installed” so grievances and complaints cannot be
thrown away or altered. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff also wants
monetary relief and for the “federal government to
investigate the criminal procedure and abuse of power.”
Id. Plaintiff also attached to the Complaint a
grievance addressed to “Captain.” (Doc. 1, p. 7).
In it, he complains that on March 3, 2018, a corrections
officer told Plaintiff that if he caught him in the hallway,
he would kill him. The corrections officer also “called
[Plaintiff] a retard.” Id.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 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, failure to include
specific allegations tying individual defendants to the
alleged unconstitutional conduct, does 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).
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted because Defendant Lakin, the only defendant, has not
been sufficiently associated with any of the allegedly
unconstitutional actions. Plaintiff's statement that
Lakin violated his Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights is
vague and conclusory and therefore cannot, without more,
support a constitutional claim against him. Plaintiff also
alludes to his rights being violated by other individuals,
including a guard who threatened violence against him, but
the guard is not named as a defendant in this case and will