United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge
Fredeal Truidalle, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at
Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
deprivations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff asserts
medical and property claims related to the deprivation of his
personal property while he was in segregation. (Doc. 1). He
seeks monetary damages. (Id.).
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint under 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, malicious, fails
to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from
an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
makes the following allegations in his Complaint: Plaintiff
was taken to Lawrence segregation on February 26, 2017under
investigation. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He was walked to segregation
without his eyeglasses and dentures. (Id.).
Plaintiff told C/O West and C/O Crawforth that he needed his
eyeglasses and dentures. (Id.). He also told them
that he could not eat without his dentures. (Id.).
C/O West told Plaintiff to send a request to personal
property but not to expect anything from them because they do
not care about segregation property. (Id.).
Plaintiff filed a grievance. (Id.) He also filed
several requests with mental health and internal affairs.
he was deprived of his dentures, Plaintiff had digestion and
constipation issues because he was unable to properly chew
his food. (Id.). Also, he could not see properly
without his eyeglasses. (Id.). He was without his
eyeglasses and dentures until May 27, 2017. (Id.).
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the action into the following Counts:
Count 1:Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs claim against Defendants because Plaintiff had
difficulty eating without his dentures resulting in digestion
and constipation issues and he could not see properly without
Count 2:Property loss claim for the three months Plaintiff
was without his dentures and eyeglasses.
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
Warden Brookhart, IDOC Director Jeffreys, C/O Hicks, C/O
Vaughn, and John/Jane Doe are not referenced in the statement
of claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the
Complaint must include a short, plain statement of the case
against each individual. Merely naming a party in the caption
of a Complaint is not enough to state a claim against him.
Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir.
1998). Because Plaintiff failed to allege specific acts of
wrongdoing by these individuals, the personal involvement
requirement necessary for Section 1983 liability is not met.
Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir.
Warden Brookhart and IDOC Director Jeffreys cannot be held
liable based solely on their positions as administrators as
the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply
to section 1983 actions. Chavez v. Illinois State
Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (2001); Sanville v.
McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, Warden Brookhart, ...