United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge
Devin Wade, Jr., an inmate at St. Clair County Jail, brings
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for constitutional deprivations that occurred during his
arrest in East St. Louis, Illinois, on August 30, 2017. (Doc.
1, pp. 1-6). Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, money
damages, and unspecified “Rule 65” injunctive
relief. (Id. at pp. 1, 4).
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).
Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations: On or
around August 30, 2017, Officers Vince Anderson and John Doe
(an unknown officer) entered the home of Plaintiff's
relative through an open door-without a warrant, consent, or
exigent circumstances. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-3). With guns drawn,
the officers searched the home and seized two firearms.
(Id. at p. 2). They coerced Plaintiff's
grandmother into signing an unidentified document in the
process. (Id. at p. 3).
occurred, Plaintiff stood in the living room with his hands
up. (Id. at p. 2). Officer Doe “slammed”
Plaintiff in his face and chest until he dropped to the
ground. (Id.). With his knee against Plaintiff's
neck, Officer Doe threatened to “blow [Plaintiff's]
head off” if he moved. (Id.). Plaintiff called
for help, but Officer Anderson stood by and “allowed
the abuse to continue.” (Id. at p. 3).
Plaintiff was taken into custody and released without being
charged. (Id.). He suffered neck and shoulder pain
following the incident, as well as anxiety and fear.
on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to organize
the pro se Complaint into the following enumerated
Count 1: Fourth Amendment claim against
Defendants for the unlawful search, seizure, and arrest of
Plaintiff on August 30, 2017.
Count 2: Fourth Amendment claim against
Defendants for the unlawful use of force against Plaintiff
during his arrest on or around August 30, 2017.
Count 3: Fourth amendment claim against
Defendants for denying Plaintiff medical care for the
physical and emotional injuries he suffered on August 30,
claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed
herein is considered dismissed without prejudice as
inadequately pled under Twombly.
1 and 2 survive screening under Section 1915A, but Count 3
does not. With respect to Count 3, the objectively
unreasonable denial of medical care by an officer or jailer
supports a Fourth Amendment claim of an arrestee. Currie
v. Chhabra, 728 F.3d 626, 629-30 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing
Villanova v. Abrams, 972 F.2d 792, 797 (7th Cir.
1992)). However, this claim-like all others brought pursuant
to Section 1983-hinges on personal liability and is
predicated upon fault. Pepper v. Village of Oak
Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff sets
forth no allegations suggesting that either defendant was
personally responsible for the denial of his medical care or
mental health treatment on or after August 30, 2017. He
discloses no efforts to notify the defendants of his
shoulder, neck, or emotional injuries. He makes no claim that
his injuries were obvious or that he requested medical
attention from the defendants. The allegations thus support
no claim against the defendants for the denial of medical
care, and Count 3 shall be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim.
of Unknown Defendant
shall be allowed to proceed with Counts 1 and 2 against
Officer John Doe. However, this defendant must be identified
with particularity before service of the Complaint can be
made on the officer. Plaintiff will have the opportunity to
engage in limited discovery to ascertain the identity of this
defendant. Rodriguez, 577 F.3d at 832. The Chief of
Police of East St. Louis Police Department will be added as a
defendant, in his or her official capacity only, and shall be
responsible for responding to discovery aimed at identifying
the unknown defendant. Once the name is discovered, ...