United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TERRY L. PYLES, #34864, Plaintiff,
GRANITE CITY POLICE DEPT. and OFFICER DAILEY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge.
Terry Pyles, a detainee at Madison County Jail
(“Jail”), brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his
constitutional rights. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff claims that
Granite City Police Department and Officer Dailey conducted
an unlawful stop, search, and seizure of him in connection
with Madison County Case No. 18-CF-3000. (Id. at pp.
1-6). He brings claims against both defendants for violations
of his rights under federal and state law. (Id.).
Plaintiff seeks monetary and “exculpatory”
relief. (Id. at pp. 3).
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 (Doc. 1,
pp. 1-3): While riding his bicycle in Granite City, Illinois,
Plaintiff was stopped and arrested on an undisclosed date. As
Plaintiff approached a stop sign, Granite City Police Officer
Dailey trailed him in a squad car. The car followed Plaintiff
so closely that he could not stop at the intersection. When
he rolled through the stop sign, Officer Dailey pointed a
Taser gun out of the passenger window and threatened to
“taze” Plaintiff if he did not stop. Plaintiff
stopped. Without issuing any Miranda warnings, the
officer began questioning Plaintiff about suspected drug
activity in the area. During this exchange, the officer
placed Plaintiff in handcuffs, searched him, and arrested
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 stop of Plaintiff in Granite
Count 2: Fourth Amendment claim against
Defendants for the unlawful arrest/seizure of Plaintiff in
Granite City, Illinois.
Count 3: Fourth Amendment claim against
Defendants for the unlawful use of force against Plaintiff in
Granite City, Illinois.
Count 4: Fourth Amendment claim against
Defendants for the unlawful search of Plaintiff in Granite
Count 5: Fifth Amendment claim against
Defendants for failing to read Plaintiff his Miranda
Count 6: Fourteenth Amendment racial
profiling claim against Defendants.
Count 7: Illinois state law claims against
Defendants for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution,
slander, defamation, officer misconduct, etc.
claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed
herein is considered dismissed without prejudice under
Bell Atlantic ...