Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Quillman v. IDOC

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 27, 2018

ROBERTA NICKIE EZELL QUILLMAN, also known as ROBERT N. QUILLMAN NO. B85887, Plaintiff,
v.
IDOC, NICHOLAS LAMB, MICHAE B. GILREATH, C/O RUTHERFORD, and JOHN DOE, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Roberta Nickie Ezell Quillman (a/k/a Robert N. Quillman), a transgender inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”), brings this action for deprivations of her constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's original Complaint (Doc. 1), which was filed when Plaintiff was housed at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”), alleged Plaintiff was being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, and that her requests for protective custody had been wrongfully denied. In connection with her claims, Plaintiff sought monetary damages and injunctive relief. Specifically, Plaintiff asked to be placed in protective custody at Pontiac or Stateville Correctional Center. As noted above, after filing the original Complaint, Plaintiff was transferred to Pontiac and is presently incarcerated at that institution.

         The original Complaint did not associate Plaintiff's claims with any particular individual; instead, she generally alleged she had been assaulted by “Lawrence Correctional Staff.” Accordingly, it did not survive preliminary review and was dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

         (Doc. 5). On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 13). The First Amended Complaint suffered from many of the same deficiencies, and it was dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Doc. 14).

         Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 15), filed on June 22, 2018, is now before the court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief, must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations in the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         Second Amended Complaint

         According to the Second Amended Complaint, on January 5, 2018, and January 18, 2018, Plaintiff was beaten by Gilreath, Rutherford, and John Doe. (Doc. 15, p. 5). As a result of the alleged beating, Plaintiff had a black eye and bruised ribs. Id. Plaintiff also claims that Gilreath, Rutherford, and John Doe “subjected [her] to public humiliation, discrimination, bullying, [and], physical and mental abuse.” Id. However, Plaintiff does not offer any facts in support of the latter claim. Id.

         Plaintiff alleges that, while housed at Lawrence, she was raped, sexually assaulted, and beaten by both inmates and correctional officers. Id. Plaintiff does not associate this claim with any particular defendant, and she does not offer any facts in support of these conclusory allegations. Id.

         Finally, Plaintiff claims that Lamb, Gilreath, Rutherford, and John Doe denied her requests for protective custody. Id. But, once again, Plaintiff does not provide any specific factual information in support of her claim. Id.

         Dismissal of IDOC

         As the Court previously explained, IDOC, as a state agency, is not a “person” that may be sued under Section 1983. Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, IDOC shall be dismissed from the action with prejudice.

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into the following counts.[1]

Count 1: Gilreath, Rutherford, and John Doe used excessive force against Plaintiff on January 5, 2018, and January 18, 2018, in violation ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.