district court properly dismissed pro se complaint where it alleged no specific conduct by the defendant and only included the defendant's name in the caption
How later courts described this case
- district court properly dismissed pro se complaint where it alleged no specific conduct by the defendant and only included the defendant's name in the caption
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEFF BOSAW, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 22-4044
)
HENRY COUNTY SHERIFF, et. al., )
Defendants )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge:
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the Plaintiff’s complaint. The
Court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff’s complaint, and through
such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, claims Defendants Henry County Sheriff John Doe,
“Henry County Municipality,” Administrator Nancy Lessard, “Unknown Nursing Staff
Contractor,” Public Defender Thomas Patton, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alyssa Raya,
Unknown Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents, Officer Laurie Hess, Officer Davis,
Officer Brown, Officer Engel, and “All Other Under Oath Officers Deemed Also
Responsible” violated his constitutional rights. (Comp., p. 2-5).
Plaintiff claims the relevant events occurred during a brief staff at the Henry
County Jail from November 14, 2020 through December 8, 2020. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to determine the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint. He begins by referring to a
previous lawsuit noting he was “removed from a larger class action suit,” and
admitting “not all of the particulars in that case having a direct connection with this
Plaintiff.” (Comp., p. 8). Plaintiff has cited to Stewart v. Henry County Jail, Case No. 20-
4268. However, Plaintiff was dismissed in a February 1, 2020 Merit Review Order. The
one surviving plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as directed and the case was
dismissed in its entirety. See March 14, 2022 Text Order.
Plaintiff filed his complaint in this case on March 10, 2022. [1]. Plaintiff makes
vague claims about inhumane living conditions at the jail, but he does not provide any
specific dates or descriptions of any specific conditions. In addition, Plaintiff does not
explain how most of the named Defendants were involved in his claims. See Kuhn v.
Milwaukee County, 59 F. Appx 148, 150 (7th Cir. 2003) (merely naming defendants in the
caption of a complaint does not state a claim against them); Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d
1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974) (district court properly dismissed pro se complaint where it
alleged no specific conduct by the defendant and only included the defendant's name in
the caption).
Plaintiff does provide a confusing paragraph somehow claiming the Defendant
Public Defender and Defendant Assistant United States Attorney were responsible for
unspecified violations, but neither individual would be responsible for living conditions
at the Henry County Jail.
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and therefore
his complaint is dismissed. It is not clear that allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to file
an amended complaint can cure the deficiencies noted. However, Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se and therefore the Court will allow him one opportunity to clearly
state his intended claim.
Plaintiff is advised Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires complaints to
include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Furthermore, “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise,
and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 also requires the
pleader to “state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10 (b) “The primary purpose
of these rules is to give defendants fair notice of the claims against them and the
grounds supporting the claims.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011).
Therefore, if Plaintiff is claiming he faced inhumane living conditions, he must
specifically identify those conditions. Plaintiff should state when the conditions
occurred and where they occurred in the jail. Plaintiff should indicate what impact
those conditions had on him. Finally, Plaintiff must identify Defendants who
specifically knew about those conditions, but still failed to take any action. Plaintiff’s
amended complaint must also stand complete on its own, include all claims and
defendants, and must not refer to any previous complaint or lawsuit.
Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff’s initial complaint states the issue of exhaustion
of administrative remedies is “not applicable, no longer at Henry County.” (Comp, p.
6). Nonetheless, Plaintiff must be able to explain why he failed to file a grievance
during the brief time he was at the jail.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
2) If Plaintiff believes he can articulate a violation of his constitutional rights, he
must file an amended complaint on or before 5/13/2022. If Plaintiff fails to file
an amended complaint by the deadline or fails to follow the Court’s directions,
his case will be dismissed.
3) The Clerk is to provide Plaintiff with a blank complaint form for his assistance
and reset the internal merit review deadline within 30 days.
ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2022.
s/James E. Shadid
____________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE