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.

Barr v. ST. Clair County Sheriff Dept.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 21, 2019

JOHN DYLAN BARR, #S16307, Plaintiff,
v.
ST. CLAIR COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT., JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, and JOHN DOE 4, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff John Dylan Barr, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Jacksonville Correctional Center, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional deprivations that occurred during his arrest by four unknown officers (John Doe 1-4) from St. Clair County Sheriff's Department in St. Louis, Missouri. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-12). He seeks monetary relief. (Id. at p. 9).

         The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a 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 are liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         The Complaint

         In the Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations: On or around February 9, 2018, Plaintiff was stopped and arrested by four unknown officers (John Doe 1-4) from St. Clair County Sheriff's Department as he walked out of St. Louis University Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). He exited the hospital “of [his] own free will.” (Id. at p. 7). Even so, the officers (John Doe 1-4) forced him down at gunpoint and shot him with their taser guns. (Id.). After handcuffing him, the officers placed Plaintiff into a white Lexus and transported him to St. Clair County Jail as one officer beat him in the face. (Id.).

         At St. Clair County Jail, Plaintiff complained about numerous violations of his rights that occurred in connection with his arrest. (Id.). Officer Sims[1] and other unnamed booking officers informed Officers Doe 1-4 that they could not legally book Plaintiff into the facility. (Id.). Approximately three hours later, Plaintiff was transferred to St. Louis City Jail and forced to sign an unidentified “paper” that resulted in his detention there. (Id.). Plaintiff's mugshot allegedly depicts facial injuries he received during his arrest. (Id.). In the weeks that followed, Plaintiff suffered from untreated physical pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, loss of companionship, and loss of enjoyment of life. (Id. at pp. 7-8).

         Based on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to organize the pro se Complaint into the following enumerated Counts:

Count 1: Fourth Amendment claim against Defendants for the unlawful arrest of Plaintiff on or around February 9, 2018.
Count 2: Fourth Amendment claim against Defendants for the unlawful use of force against Plaintiff during his arrest on or around February 9, 2018.
Count 3: Fourth Amendment claim against Defendants for denying Plaintiff adequate medical care and/or mental health treatment for the injuries he sustained during his arrest on or around February 9, 2018.

         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. Any claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.[2]

         Preliminary Dismissal

         St. Clair County Sheriff Department

         The St. Clair County Sheriff Department is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's designation of this defendant may represent an attempt to hold a municipality liable for his injuries. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 694 (1978). However, municipal liability under § 1983 arises from the execution of a government policy or custom that causes a constitutional injury. Id. ...


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.