United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Joseph Decker, 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 claims that his constitutional rights were violated
when a Waterloo Police Department officer sexually harassed
him at Monroe County Jail. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages against Officer Zabor and several other
officials at Monroe County Jail. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Complaint is now subject to screening under 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.
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed on a single
occasion by Officer Eric Zabor, who is employed by the
Waterloo Police Department. (Doc. 1, p. 5). On March 21,
2018, Officer Zabor served Plaintiff with a federal
indictment at Monroe County Jail. Id. After
completing service of the indictment on Plaintiff, Officer
Zabor grabbed his own “private area in a very sexual
way” and told Plaintiff that he “would be fucking
[him] real soon.” Id. Plaintiff describes
Officer Zabor as the “main officer” involved in
his case. Id. A Waterloo Police Department
Citizen's Complaint Form submitted along with the
Complaint identifies Officers “Ben” and
“Mason” as witnesses to the incident. (Doc. 1, p.
following day, Plaintiff was given a bond reduction at a
hearing in Monroe County. (Doc. 1, p. 8). When he returned to
the Jail, Plaintiff learned that State's Attorney Chris
Hitzemann had contacted the Jail and instructed the officers
“not to let [Plaintiff] make bail” because of a
“federal hold.” Id. The Jail supervisor
later informed Plaintiff that there was no federal hold, and
he was “free to make bail.” Id.
now brings a claim against Officer Zabor for sexual
harassment and against State's Attorney Hitzemann for
unspecified constitutional violations. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He
seeks monetary relief that includes reimbursement for the
cost of “any medical bills for therapy or
counseling.” (Doc. 1, p. 6). In the Complaint, he also
names three other Monroe County Jail officials as defendants,
including C/O Kelly, C/O Mason, and Sheriff Rohlfing. (Doc.
1, p. 1).
Court deems it appropriate to organize the pro se
Complaint into the following enumerated count to facilitate
the orderly management of future proceedings in this case and
in accordance with the ...