United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ROBERTA NICKIE EZELL QUILLMAN, also known as ROBERT N. QUILLMAN NO. B85887, Plaintiff,
IDOC, NICHOLAS LAMB, MICHAE B. GILREATH, C/O RUTHERFORD, and JOHN DOE, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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
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.
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
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into the
Count 1: Gilreath, Rutherford, and John Doe
used excessive force against Plaintiff on January 5, 2018,
and January 18, 2018, in violation ...