United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert District Judge.
Frank Joe Brown, who is currently detained at Randolph County
Jail (“Jail”), brings this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. 1). In the Complaint,
Plaintiff indicates that his constitutional rights have been
violated at the Jail. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Complaint is now subject to preliminary review 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. The
Complaint does not survive preliminary review under this
Joe Brown is a federal inmate who is currently housed at
Randolph County Jail. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Brown lists no parties
in the case caption of his Complaint. (Doc. 1, p. 1).
Although he signed the Complaint as the plaintiff, Brown also
lists himself and “Nena” as defendants. (Doc. 1,
pp. 1-2, 6).
statement of his claim, Brown states: “(1) My 8th
Amendment was violated; (2) This Jail have violated my
constitution rights as a federal inmate; [and] (3) d[ue] to
my religious practice as a Moorish American.” (Doc. 1,
p. 5). Brown includes no other allegations in support of
these claims. Id.
with the Complaint, Brown filed copies of several grievances
and grievance responses. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-15). They address
numerous unrelated issues. Id. Brown complains that
his food tray was delivered early one day while he was
participating in a religious fast. (Doc. 1, pp. 7, 10). As a
result, he was forced to choose between eating warm food and
completing his fast. Id. Brown also complains that
he was given food containing eggs. (Doc. 1, pp. 8, 15). He
was denied cleaning supplies for two months. (Doc. 1, pp. 9,
11, 13-14). He was also required to share his cell with
another inmate. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Finally, Brown states that he
had to throw away food after Jail officials entered his cell
and began spray painting it while he was cooking. (Doc. 1, p.
12). None of the exhibits mention Nena. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-15).
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Complaint suffers from numerous fatal defects, both
procedural and substantive. It violates Rule 10 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires every
pleading to include the names of the plaintiff(s) and
defendant(s) in the case caption. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 10(a). Brown lists no one at all in the case caption.
(Doc. 1, p. 1). Although the form then prompts the plaintiff
to provide additional information about each party on the
first two pages of the complaint form, Brown identifies
himself and “Nena” as defendants in this section
without providing any additional information. Id.
Given that he signed and filed the Complaint, Brown
is the plaintiff, and he should list himself as
“Plaintiff” in ...