United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Ronald Sanders, Jr., a pretrial detainee in the Jackson
County Jail, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 seeking dismissal of state criminal
charges, release from custody, and monetary damages. (Doc.
1). The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary
review 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. §
alleges he was held for over 72 hours in the Randolph County
Jail on a Jackson County warrant without seeing a Judge.
(Doc. 1, p. 6). He also alleges he did not have a preliminary
hearing within 30 days. (Id.). These facts do not
allege a colorable constitutional claim cognizable via a
Section 1983 action. Plaintiff does not identify any
violation of his federal constitutional rights but
instead, alleges only violations of state law. Section 1983
provides a remedy for constitutional violations, not
violations of state law. Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d
752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003).
any federal claim, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a) extends the jurisdiction of federal
district courts to all claims that are sufficiently related
to the claim or claims on which their original jurisdiction
is based to be part of the same case or controversy within
the meaning of Article III of the Constitution. This same
statute provides that the district court may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district
court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
“[T]he general rule is that, when all federal claims
are dismissed before trial, the district court should
relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather
than resolving them on the merits.” Wright v.
Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir.
1994); see also Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193
F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999) (noting that established law of
this circuit is that the “usual practice” is to
dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever
federal claims have been dismissed before trial).
even if Plaintiff's claims were based on a violation of
his federal constitutional rights, the Complaint
would still be subject to dismissal. Plaintiff identifies two
Defendants, Judge Grace and Sheriff Wolff, but makes no
specific allegations against these individuals in his
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 invoking the name of a
potential defendant is not sufficient to state a claim
against that individual. See Collins v. Kibort, 143
F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). To the extent Plaintiff seeks
to hold Sheriff Wolff liable for the actions of subordinate
employees, the claim fails because the doctrine of respondeat
superior (supervisory liability) is not applicable to section
1983 actions. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724,
740 (7th Cir. 2001). Additionally, Judge Grace has absolute
immunity from Section 1983 suits for damages for acts within
his judicial jurisdiction. See Mireles v. Waco, 502
U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S.
219, 225-29 (1988); Richman v. Sheahan, 270 F.3d
430, 434 (7th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Sheriff Wolf is
dismissed without prejudice and Judge Grace is dismissed with
Plaintiff's request for release from custody is not an
available remedy in a Section 1983 action. The United States
Supreme Court has long held that the sole federal remedy for
a state prisoner who is challenging the fact or duration of
his physical confinement and seeking immediate or speedier
release from imprisonment is a writ of habeas corpus.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter does not survive
28 U.S.C. § 1915A review, and the Complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
state a claim.
IS ORDERED that Judge Grace is DISMISSED
with prejudice and Shannon Wolff is
DISMISSED without prejudice and the Clerk of
Court is DIRECTED to
TERMINATE them as defendants.
IS ORDERED that Plaintiff is
GRANTED leave to file a First Amended
Complaint on or before December 19, 2019. If
Plaintiff decides to file a First Amended Complaint, he
should identify each defendant in the case caption and set
forth sufficient allegations against each defendant to
describe what the defendant did or failed to do to violate
his constitutional rights. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65
F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995) (to be liable under section
1983 a defendant must have personally caused or participated
in a constitutional deprivation). A successful complaint
generally alleges “the who, what, when, where, and how
....” DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d
624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff should attempt to include
the relevant facts of his case in chronological order,
inserting each defendant's name where necessary to
identify the actors and each defendant's actions. The
First Amended Complaint should comply with Rule 8 and
Plaintiff fails to file his First Amended Complaint within
the allotted time or consistent with the instructions set
forth in this Order, the entire case shall be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and/or for
failure to prosecute his claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b);
Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997);
Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The dismissal shall count as one of
Plaintiff's three allotted “strikes” under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original
complaint, rendering the original complaint void. See
Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d
632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept
piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint. Thus, the
First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without
reference to any previous pleading, and Plaintiff must
re-file any relevant exhibits he wishes the Court to
consider. The First Amended Complaint is subject to review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff decides to file a First Amended Complaint, it is
strongly recommended that he use the civil rights complaint
form designed for use in this District. He should label the
form, “First Amended Complaint, ” and he should
use the case number for this action (No. 19-cv-01002-JPG). To
enable Plaintiff to comply with this Order, the
CLERK is DIRECTED to mail
Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.
is further ADVISED that his obligation to
pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time
the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and
payable, regardless of whether Plaintiff elects to file a
First Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. ...