United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JERRY B. EZEBUIROH, #19059152, Plaintiff,
JOHN DOE #1, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court for preliminary review of the
Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) filed by Plaintiff Jerry B.
Ezebuiroh on December 16, 2019. Plaintiff, a detainee at
Marion County Law Enforcement Center, brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge
the conditions of his confinement at Marion County Law
Enforcement Center. (Id. at pp. 1-8). Plaintiff
seeks money damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at
Amended Complaint is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints
and 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 Amended Complaint
(Doc. 23, pp. 1-8): Plaintiff has been detained at Marion
County Law Enforcement Center since July 27, 2019.
(Id. at pp. 6-8). Since then, he has been housed in
a holding cell that is smeared with feces and infested with
mice. (Id.). He has been allowed four showers in
four months, and his cell has no running water.
(Id.). Plaintiff has also been forced to sleep on a
moldy mat and eat on a food tray from the “sick
attempted to address these conditions by speaking directly to
Jail Administrator John Doe. (Id. at pp. 4-5). He
also filed written grievances with Doe. In response, Doe
instructed his employees to “find a blind spot [and]
trash [Plaintiff's] grievance[s].” (Id. at
p. 5). Plaintiff also got his “ass beat” for
complaining. (Id. at p. 4).
on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to organize
the pro se Amended Complaint into the following
Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Jail Administrator Doe for subjecting Plaintiff to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Jail Administrator Doe for subjecting Plaintiff to the
unauthorized use of force when he complained about the
conditions of his confinement.
Count 3: First Amendment claim against Jail
Administrator Doe for retaliating against Plaintiff when he
complained about the conditions of his confinement by
subjecting him to the unauthorized use of force.
claim that is mentioned in the Amended Complaint but not
addressed herein is considered dismissed without prejudice as
inadequately pled under Twombly.
appears to be a pretrial detainee, so his claims in Counts 1
and 2 are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment entitles him to more robust
protections than the Eighth Amendment. However, Count 1
survives screening under either standard. See Hardeman v.
Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2019) (articulating
different standards for conditions claims brought by pretrial
detainees and prisoners). This claim shall receive further
review against Jail Administrator John Doe.
2 and 3 do not survive preliminary review because Plaintiff
does not allege that Jail Administrator Doe was involved in
either constitutional deprivation. Section 1983
“creates a cause of action based on personal liability
and predicated upon fault; thus liability does not attach
unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a
constitutional violation.” Vance v. Peters, 97
F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff must make plausible
allegations against an individual, and he has failed to do so
in connection with either of these claims. See Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555 (2007). Accordingly, Counts 2 and 3 shall be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.