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.

Roberts v. Ritchey

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 7, 2019

LARRY ROBERTS, Plaintiff,
v.
SHAWN RITCHEY and VANDALIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Larry Roberts, a former inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections previously incarcerated at Vandalia Correctional Center (“Vandalia”), [1] 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.

         This 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).

         The Complaint

          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.

         Based 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 harassment.
Count 4: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants for depriving Plaintiff of personal property.

         The 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 standard.[2]

         Preliminary Dismissal

         The 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.

         To the 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 (7th ...


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.