United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Juan Alvarado-Gonzalez, an inmate of the Illinois Department
of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”), brings this action for alleged
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). He asserts an Eighth Amendment
failure to protect claim and a state law intentional
infliction of emotional distress claim. He seeks monetary
damages and injunctive relief.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires
the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out
nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion
of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages
from an immune defendant 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).
following allegations are taken from the Complaint and the
attached documents: Plaintiff entered IDOC in 2018 and was
incarcerated at Pinckneyville. (Doc. 1-1, p. 11). He was
sexually assaulted in January and February 2018 by his first
cellmate and in March and/or April 2018 by his second
cellmate. (Doc. 1, p. 8; Doc. 1-1, p. 6-8). On May 14, 2018,
his cellmate choked him. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 18, 20-21). He
complained to Defendants and was placed in segregation under
the guise of an investigation. (Doc. 1, p. 8). During a
psychiatric exam on May 30, 2018, he told Dr. Kathryn Adams
that his cellmate choked him because of the nature of his
criminal conviction. (Id. at 22). He also told her
that he had been sexually abused by other inmates.
(Id. at 26). In August 2018, he wrote grievances to
Counselor Hill “about PREA” and the incident
where his cellmate choked him. (Id. at 7).
October 2018 another cellmate broke his nose. (Doc. 1-1, pp.
29-30, 39). During a psychiatric exam on November 19, 2018,
he told Dr. Phyumar Hla that he was feeling more depressed
because his cellmate broke his nose before being released and
now he is in segregation. (Id. at 30, 34).
November 29, 2018, he wrote to Frank/IA Office asking to be
moved to another cell but no one responded. (Doc. 1-1, p. 7).
He wrote a grievance in December 2018 regarding the sexual
assaults by his first two cellmates. (Doc. 1-1, p. 38). On
December 14, 2018, during a mental health exam, he told Molly
McElvain he had been assaulted three times while in prison.
(Doc. 1-1, p. 39). In January 2019, he wrote a grievance
complaining that he had been sexually assaulted and had his
nose broken but staff will not protect him because of the
nature of his criminal conviction. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 9-10).
Also, his claims have been misinterpreted because there is
not a Spanish interpreter. (Id. at 10).
suffered severe emotional distress because of Defendants'
extreme, outrageous conduct. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Defendants
failed to intervene to prevent Plaintiff's cellmates from
sexually and physically assaulting him because of the nature
of his criminal conviction. (Id. at 9).
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court divides this
action into the following counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants
for failing to protect him from the sexual and physical
assaults by his cellmates.
Count 2: State law intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim.
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 claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not
addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed
without prejudice as inadequately pled under the
reasons explained below, the Complaint does not survive
preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and will be
dismissed. Plaintiff's statement of claim, which contains
only three numbered paragraphs, does not provide any factual
detail and fails to associate his allegations with any
individual Defendants. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9). Instead, it
contains conclusory and collective allegations that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights because he was
sexually and physical assaulted by his cellmates.
(Id.) Section 1983 creates a cause of action based
on personal liability and predicated upon fault. Therefore,
“to be liable under § 1983, the individual
defendant must have caused or participated in a
constitutional deprivation.” Pepper v. Village of
Oak Park,430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005). To state a
claim against a defendant, a plaintiff must describe what the
defendant did or failed to do that violated the
plaintiff's constitutional rights. The plaintiff is also
required to associate specific defendants with specific
claims so that defendants are put on notice of the claims
brought against them and they can properly answer the
Complaint. Twombly, 550 at 555; FED. R. CIV. P.
8(a)(2). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 pleading
standards, the Complaint must include a short, plain
statement of the case against each individual. An allegation
that a group of ...