United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Carlos Garrett, a former detainee in St. Clair County Jail
(the “Jail”), brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional
rights that allegedly occurred at the Jail. Plaintiff's
Complaint (Doc. 1) was dismissed without prejudice on April
9, 2018, and he was granted leave to amend. (Doc. 96). In his
Amended Complaint (Doc. 98), Plaintiff attempts to revive
each of the four claims he brought in the original Complaint
(Doc. 1), though his claim related to the sick call procedure
at the Jail was severed from this action, and his claim
related to the grievance procedure was dismissed with
prejudice. (Doc. 96, p. 11). He also once again named St.
Clair County Jail as a defendant in his Amended Complaint,
though it was also dismissed with prejudice. This case is now
before the Court for a preliminary review of the Amended
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 summarily dismiss
Amended Complaint (Doc. 98), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: during his time at the Jail from April to
December 2016, Plaintiff did not have access to an adequate
grievance procedure, he was subjected to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement and health risks, and he did not
have access to an adequate sick call procedure. (Doc. 98, p.
5). Plaintiff asks for the grievance procedure to be
rectified, the sick call procedure to be addressed, for
emergency buttons to be put in the cells, and for the black
mold to be removed. (Doc. 98, p. 6).
Amended Complaint (Doc. 98), Plaintiff has wholly failed to
expand upon his allegations in the original Complaint (Doc.
1). In fact, he has limited his allegations to no more than
one line per original count designated in this action. He has
attempted to revive claims that were severed from this action
or dismissed with prejudice, and he has re-named St. Clair
County Jail as a defendant though it was also dismissed from
this action with prejudice. The Court therefore incorporates
its reasoning in its previous Order (Doc. 96) by reference to
dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
failure of the Amended Complaint to state a colorable
constitutional claim begs the question, should Plaintiff be
given another opportunity to plead his case? Leave to amend
need not be granted when further amendment would be futile.
McCree v. Grissom, 657 F.3d 623, 624 (7th Cir.
2011). “[F]utile repleadings include restating the same
facts using different language, Wakeen v. Hoffman House,
Inc., 724 F.2d 1238, 1244 (7th Cir. 1983), reasserting
claims previously determined, id., failing to state
a valid theory of liability, Verhein v. South Bend Lathe,
Inc., 598 F.2d 1061, 1063 (7th Cir. 1979), and the
inability to survive a motion to dismiss, Glick v.
Koenig, 766 F.2d 265, 268 (7th Cir. 1985).”
Garcia v. City of Chicago, Ill., 24 F.3d 966, 970
(7th Cir. 1994). Giving Plaintiff leave to amend would
clearly be futile in this case. Plaintiff has brought the
same claims that were previously dismissed and has alleged
far fewer facts to support them. Accordingly, Plaintiff will
not be given leave to amend, and this case will be dismissed