United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Larry Roberts, a former inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections previously incarcerated at Vandalia Correctional
Center (“Vandalia”),  brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights. Plaintiff claims he was assaulted,
harassed, and items of his personal property were thrown
away. (Doc. 1). He seeks monetary damages. Id.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint 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 requests 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 of the pro se Complaint are to
be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Complaint:
On September 3, 2018, Sgt. Ritchey spit in Plaintiff's
face, stomped on his right foot, and made fun of his
genitalia. Ritchey also threw away some of Plaintiff's
personal items. Following that event, Ritchey aggressively
confronted Plaintiff in the chow hall. Plaintiff stopped
going to noon meals because Ritchey would stare him down.
This affected his anxiety and depression. Other officers have
belittled and laughed at Plaintiff.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate the following Counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against
Defendants for an assault on September 3, 2018.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for sexual
harassment on September 3, 2018.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for
Count 4: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against
Defendants for depriving Plaintiff of personal property.
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. The designations do not
constitute an opinion regarding their merit. Any other
intended claim that has not been recognized by the Court is
considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately
pleaded under the Twombly pleading
Supreme Court has held that “neither a State nor its
officials acting in their official capacities are
‘persons' under § 1983.” Will v.
Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
See also Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th
Cir. 2001) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in
federal court for money damages); Billman v. Ind.
Dep't of Corr., 56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 1995)
(state Department of Corrections is immune from suit by
virtue of Eleventh Amendment); Hughes v. Joliet Corr.
Ctr., 931 F.2d 425, 427 (7th Cir. 1991) (same);
Santiago v. Lane, 894 F.2d 218, 220 n. 3 (7th Cir.
1990) (same). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot maintain suit
against Vandalia Correctional Center which is a division of
the Illinois Department of Corrections; it is dismissed from
this action with prejudice.
extent Plaintiff makes allegations against unidentified
“other officers, ” they are not identified as
Defendants in the case caption or list of Defendants.
Accordingly, any claim Plaintiff intended to bring against
“other officers” is dismissed without prejudice.
See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52