United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge
Maurice Brough, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights while he was at
Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”). In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Sergeant Marvin was deliberately
indifferent to his conditions of confinement in violation of
the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section
1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to
filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a
defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
makes the following allegations in the Complaint: On May 2,
2018, he was sent to segregation at Shawnee and placed in a
cell without a light and that lacked running water (Doc. 1,
p. 6). Because the cell lacked running water, he was forced
to wash himself with toilet water. (Id.). Plaintiff
was in the cell for a number of weeks; he informed Sergeant
Marvin and other employees about his conditions, but they did
not fix the conditions.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate a single count in this pro
1: Sergeant Marvin was deliberately indifferent to the
conditions of Plaintiff's segregation cell in violation
of the Eighth Amendment.
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 other claim that is
mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order
should be considered dismissed without prejudice as
inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading
extent that Shawnee Correctional Center is listed as a party
in the caption, the correctional center is not a proper
party. The Supreme Court has held that “neither a State
nor its officials acting in their official capacities are
‘persons' under § 1983.” Will v.
Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
See also Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th
Cir. 2001) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in
federal court for money damages); Billman v. Ind.
Dep't of Corr., 56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir.1995)
(state Department of Corrections is immune from suit by
virtue of Eleventh Amendment); Hughes v. Joliet Corr.
Ctr., 931 F.2d 425, 427 (7th Cir.1991) (same);
Santiago v. Lane, 894 F.2d 219, 220 n. 3 (7th
Cir.1990) (same). Thus, Plaintiff cannot maintain his claim
against Shawnee because it is a division of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, a state government agency. Based
on this authority, Shawnee is not a “person”
within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act and shall be
dismissed from this action. See Will, 491 U.S. at
also has identified the Warden of Shawnee Correctional Center
as a defendant, but he fails to allege that the Warden
violated his constitutional rights. There are no allegations
in the Complaint to suggest that the Warden was made aware of
the condition of Plaintiff's cell. Thus, Plaintiff fails
to state a claim against the Warden, and this defendant is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
stage, the allegations in the Complaint state a viable claim
for deliberate indifference against Sergeant Marvin.
Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir.
2008); Dixon v. Godinez,114 F.3d 640, 643 (7th
Cir.1997) (not only severity but ...