United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
RASHAD K. RICHMOND, #M41803, Plaintiff,
DEANNA M. BROOKHART, and RUSSELL GOINS, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Rashad Richmond, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Hill Correctional Center, brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights that occurred while
at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”).
Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to cruel and unusual
conditions of confinement while at Lawrence, by being held in
a cell without a working toilet for almost two months. He
seeks monetary damages.
Complaint 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 asks for 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. Rodriquez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
makes the following allegations: On April 12, 2019, he was
placed in segregation under investigative status and assigned
to a cell with a nonworking toilet. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Although
he notified various prison staff, wrote grievances, went on a
hunger strike, and threatened to kill himself, unless the
toilet was fixed, the toilet remained broken, and was
constantly full of feces and urine. Id. at pp. 8-9.
On June 7, 2019, in response to his grievance, a counselor
came and inspected the toilet. When the counselor saw that
the toilet was broken, Plaintiff was moved to a different
cell. Id. at p. 10.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate the following Count:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual
conditions of confinement claim for being placed in a cell
with a broken toilet from April 12, 2019, until June 7, 2019.
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. Any claim that is
mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed
in this Order is considered dismissed without prejudice
as inadequately pled under the
Twombly pleading standard.
Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint, as currently
drafted, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Plaintiff identifies Chief Administrative Officer
Deanna Brookhart and Assistant Ward of Operations Russell
Goins as defendants in the case caption, but he does not
describe how either defendant violated his constitutional
rights. In fact, neither defendant is referenced in the
statement of claim at all. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2) requires “‘a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
Merely invoking the name of a potential defendant by listing
him or her in the case caption is not sufficient to state a
claim against that individual. See Collins v.
Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Because
Plaintiff has failed to associate his claims with any of the
named defendants, the Complaint will be dismissed.
Court further notes that in the Complaint Plaintiff directs
allegations against various staff members at Lawrence, but
none of these individuals are listed in the case caption. The
Court will not treat individuals not listed in the caption as
defendants, and any claims against them are considered
dismissed without prejudice. See Myles v. United
States, 416 F.3d 551, 551–52 (7th Cir. 2005) (to
be properly considered a party a defendant must be
“specif[ied] in the caption”).
light of these deficiencies, Plaintiff’s Complaint does
not survive preliminary review and shall be dismissed. If he
wishes to pursue his claims, Plaintiff must file an amended
complaint describing how
defendants, named as a party in the case caption, violated
his rights, keeping in mind that in Section 1983 actions,
there is no supervisory liability. To be held individually
liable a defendant must be “‘personally
responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional
right.’” Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266
F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chavez v. Ill.
State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)).
for Recruitment of Counsel
has filed a Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3), which
will be denied at this time. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503
F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (articulating the test for
recruiting counsel). In the Motion, Plaintiff states that he
has written several law firms and that his wife has also
tried to contact an attorney, but he has not received any
responses. (Doc. 3, p. 1). In regard to ...