United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JERRY B. EZEBUIROH, #19059152, Plaintiff,
JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, JOHN DOE #3, JOHN DOE #4, and JANE DOE #5, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court for preliminary review of the
Amended Complaint (Doc. 25) filed by Plaintiff Jerry B.
Ezebuiroh on October 21, 2019. Plaintiff, a detainee at
Marion County Law Enforcement Center, brings this action for
constitutional deprivations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims that he was
sexually assaulted by a correctional officer on or around
June 1, 2019. (Id. at pp. 1-13). He seeks money
damages and injunctive relief. (Id.).
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. 25, pp. 1-13). On or around June 1, 2019, an unknown
correctional officer (John Doe 1) fondled Plaintiff's
genitals during a pat down search. (Id. at p. 7).
When Plaintiff complained to the officer, he told Plaintiff
to “deal with it.” (Id.). In June and
July 2019, Plaintiff reported the incident to an unknown Safe
officer (John Doe 2), Jail administrator (John Doe 3), and
detective (John Doe 4), but they allegedly delayed the
investigation and ultimately denied him relief. (Id.
at pp. 8-9). Plaintiff met with an unknown nurse (Jane Doe 5)
to discuss his injuries (i.e., genital pain and
redness), but she told him that it “[wa]s to[o] much
for her ears” and refused to treat him thereafter.
on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to organize
the pro se Amended Complaint into the following
1: Fourteenth Amendment claim against John Doe 1
(correctional officer) for fondling Plaintiff's genitals
unnecessarily during a pat down search on or around June 1,
2: Fourteenth Amendment claim against John Doe 2
(Safe officer), John Doe 3 (Jail administrator), and John Doe
4 (detective) for delaying, disregarding, and/or denying his
grievances and complaints regarding the incident.
3: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Jane Doe 5
(nurse) for denying Plaintiff medical treatment for the
injuries he sustained during the incident.
claim that is mentioned in the Amended Complaint but not
addressed herein is considered dismissed
without prejudice as inadequately pled under
1 and 3 survive screening under the Fourteenth
Amendment and Section 1915A. See McCann v. Ogle
Cty., Illinois, 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018)
(citing Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352
(7th Cir. 2018)) (articulating legal standards for excessive
force and medical claims brought by pretrial detainees).
Accordingly, Count 1 shall receive further review against
John Doe 1 (officer), and Count 3 shall receive further
review against Jane Doe 5 (nurse).
Count 2 does not survive screening. Standing alone, the
mishandling of inmate complaints by grievance officials
states no constitutional claim. “[A] state's inmate
grievance procedures do not give rise to a liberty interest
protected by the Due Process Clause.” Antonelli v.
Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). The
Constitution requires no procedure at all, and the failure of
state prison officials to follow their own procedures does
not, of itself, violate the Constitution. Maust v.
Headley, 959 F.2d 644, 648 (7th Cir. 1992); Shango
v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100-01 (7th Cir. 1982). Count
2 shall be dismissed with prejudice against John Doe 2 (Safe
officer), John Doe 3 (Jail administrator), and John Doe 4
(detective) for failure to state a claim.
of Unknown Defendants
shall be allowed to proceed with Counts 1 and 3 against John
Doe 1 and Jane Doe 5. However, these defendants must be
identified with particularity before service of the Amended
Complaint can be made on them. Plaintiff will have the
opportunity to engage in limited discovery to ascertain the
identity of these defendants. Rodriguez, 577 F.3d at
832. The Marion County Sheriff will be added as a defendant,
in his or her official capacity only, for purposes of
identifying each of the defendants by name. Once their names
are discovered, ...