United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
E. SHADID, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff is detained in the Rushville Treatment and
Detention Center and seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). . The “privilege to proceed
without posting security for costs and fees is reserved to
the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the
District Court's sound discretion, would remain without
legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to
them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc.,
461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Additionally, a court must
dismiss cases proceeding IFP “at any time” if the
action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim,
even if part of the filing fee is paid. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed
IFP only if the allegations state a federal claim for relief.
reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. See Turley v. Rednour, 729
F.3d 645, 649 (7thCir. 2103). However, conclusory
statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be
provided to "'state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S.,
721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation
claims his constitutional rights were violated at Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center by Program Director Greg
Scott, Grievance Examiner P. Vincent, Grievance Examiner
Sandra Simpson, Program Administrator Sharon Coleman Weems,
Secretary Grace B. Hou, and unspecified Jane and John Does.
says on June 8, 2019, he fell off the top of a bunk bed
hitting his head on a box. Plaintiff suffered a cut to his
head and injuries to his left knee, hip, and arm. As a
result, Plaintiff suffers with constant pain in his left arm
and forehead. Plaintiff also claims he is “showing
signs of post- traumatic stress disorder, nightmares, panic
attacks, elevated blood pressure, weight loss, and the sound
of static electricity in left ear.” (Comp., p. 4).
Plaintiff does not indicate whether he sought or received
medical care after the fall.
says because of his age and “physical disability,
” he should never have been assigned to a top bunk.
(Comp., p. 4). Unfortunately, Plaintiff does not provide his
age or his specific disability. In addition, Plaintiff does
not state whether he ever requested a lower bunk permit.
Plaintiff says he was forced to remain in the top bunk after
his injury even though there was an empty room nearby.
Plaintiff claims he had to climb into the top bunk at least
15 times a day with a sore hip, knee, and broken arm.
further alleges there is a history at Rushville of requiring
older or disabled residents to take the top bunk resulting in
dangerous falls. Therefore, Plaintiff claims the Defendants
have been deliberately indifferent to his health and safety.
Plaintiff requests damages, a safer way to access top bunks,
and a transfer to a mental health facility due to his fear of
complaint only mentions the Defendants in the list of
intended Defendants. (Comp, p. 2); see Potter v
Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974)(“Where
a complaint alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of
the defendant and the complaint is silent as to the defendant
except for his name appearing in the caption, the complaint
is properly dismissed, even under the liberal construction to
be given pro se complaints.”). Plaintiff makes one
general reference to “defendants” in the body of
his complaint, but Plaintiff does not explain how each
individual was specifically involved in his claims.
order to hold any individual liable pursuant to 42
U.S.C.§1983, Plaintiff must allege “the defendants
were personally responsible for the deprivation of their
rights.” Wilson v. Warren Cty., Illinois, 2016
WL 3878215, at *3 (7th Cir. 2016). “A defendant is
personally responsible ‘if the conduct causing the
constitutional deprivation occurs at his direction or with
his knowledge and consent.'” Id. quoting Gentry
v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995).
addition, an individual cannot be held liable simply because
he or she is a supervisor. See Ali v. West, 2017 WL
176304, at *3 (E.D.Wis. Jan. 17, 2017)(“[b]ecause
personal involvement is required for liability to attach, the
respondeat superior doctrine- supervisor
liability-is not applicable to Section 1983 actions.”);
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir.
2001)(“The doctrine of respondeat superior
does not apply to § 1983 actions…”).
Plaintiff's complaint is insufficient to state a claim
against any of the named Defendants. In addition, Plaintiff
cannot include an unspecified number of Jane or John Doe
Defendants without providing any additional information.
Plaintiff may include a Doe Defendant if Plaintiff states how
that individual was involved in his claim and he provides at
least some description of that individual such as a physical
description or job title and working hours.
complaint is therefore dismissed as a violation of Rule 8 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will allow
Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint
clarifying his claims. Plaintiff's amended complaint must
stand complete on its own, must not make reference to the
original complaint, and must include any intended claims and
named Defendant, Plaintiff must specifically state how the
individual was involved in his claims. In addition, if
Plaintiff complained about his bunk bed assignment either
before or after the fall, Plaintiff should state who he
complained to, how he complained, when he complained, and
what reaction he received. Plaintiff should ...