“Private corporations acting under color of state law may, like municipalities, be held liable for injuries resulting from their policies and practices.”
How later courts described this case
- “Private corporations acting under color of state law may, like municipalities, be held liable for injuries resulting from their policies and practices.”
- “[A] plausible claim must include ‘factual content’ sufficient to allow the court ‘to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’”
- applying § 1983 to private corporations
- holding that the plaintiff’s municipal liability claim failed as a matter of law because he “failed to present evidence supporting an underlying violation”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ERICA LEAKE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 23-cv-4107
)
LOUIE GLOSSIP, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations
of her constitutional rights at the Knox County Jail (“Jail”). (Doc. 1).
The case is now before the Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court must
“screen” Plaintiff’s Complaint, and through such process, identify and dismiss any legally
insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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.” Id.
The Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff’s
favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). Conclusory statements and labels are
insufficient—the facts alleged must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander
v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff identifies the following Defendants: Jail Administrator Louie Glossip, Brad
Abernathy, Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., the Knox County Sheriff’s Office, the Knox
County Board, and MSI Mechanical Services, Inc.
Due to black mold in the Jail, Plaintiff alleges she developed a persistent cough, swollen
glands, ovarian cysts, a lump in her throat, unbearable migraines, an allergic reaction, and sores
on her skin, which have left scars. Plaintiff claims Defendants hired a non-certified mold contractor
that failed to remove the black mold effectively.
ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “This
requirement is satisfied if the complaint (1) describes the claim in sufficient detail to give each
defendant fair notice of what the claim against him is and the grounds upon which it rests and (2)
plausibly suggests that the plaintiff has a right to relief above a speculative level.” Bravo v.
Midland Credit Mgmt., 812 F.3d 599, 601–02 (7th Cir. 2016); see also Charleston v. Bd. of Trs.
of the Univ. of Ill. at Chi., 741 F.3d 769, 772 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[A] plausible claim must include
‘factual content’ sufficient to allow the court ‘to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.’”) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Plaintiff has a Fourteenth Amendment right to humane conditions of confinement.
Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2019). To state a conditions-of-confinement
claim, a detainee must allege and, eventually, prove that (1) the defendant “acted purposefully,
knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly as to the conditions of the detainee’s confinement” and (2)
the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. Miranda v. Cnty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335,
352–54 (7th Cir. 2018)).
An official’s response to a particular condition may be reasonable even if the response fails
to avert the harm. Cullom v. Dart, 2020 WL 7698366, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2020) (internal
citations omitted). “[T]he reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct must be evaluated based upon
the totality of the circumstances and with appropriate deference to jail administrators’ evaluation
of safety and security concerns.” Id.; Brown v. Dart, 2021 WL 4401492, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25,
2021).
Plaintiff alleges the presence of black mold in the Jail and acknowledges efforts to address
the situation, which she claims were deficient. However, Plaintiff has not alleged how the named
Defendants were personally involved. Plaintiff cannot sue supervisory officials because of their
overarching managerial responsibilities. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 676. The officials must be
personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivations to be held liable. Vance v. Peters, 97
F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff has not provided facts that show or permit the Court to
infer how anyone was personally involved in the alleged constitutional deprivations. Aside from
naming Defendants Glossip and Abernathy in the caption of her filing and noting their respective
titles, Plaintiff does not mention them again in her complaint.
Similarly, because Plaintiff does not state a claim against any of the individual Defendants
in their official capacities, she also does not state plausible claims against the Sheriff’s Office or
Board. See Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle Cnty., 324 F.3d 947, 948 (7th Cir. 2003) ([A] county in
Illinois is a [proper] party in any suit seeking damages from an independently elected county
officer (sheriff, assessor, clerk of court, and so on) in an official capacity.”).
As to Defendants Advanced Correctional Healthcare and MSI Mechanical Services, “the
Monell theory of municipal liability applies in § 1983 claims brought against private companies
that act under color of state law.” Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 839 F.3d 658, 664 (7th
Cir. 2016); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr.
Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 675 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Private corporations acting under color of state
law may, like municipalities, be held liable for injuries resulting from their policies and
practices.”); Iskander v. Forest Park, 690 F.2d 126, 128 (7th Cir. 1982) (applying § 1983 to private
corporations).
However, a Monell claim “depend[s] on proof of an underlying constitutional violation,”
which Plaintiff has not established. Coleman v. City of Peoria, 925 F.3d 336, 351 (7th Cir. 2019)
(holding that the plaintiff’s municipal liability claim failed as a matter of law because he “failed
to present evidence supporting an underlying violation”). Therefore, Plaintiff does not state a
Monell claim.
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is given leave to file
an amended complaint within 30 days. The Court does not accept piecemeal amendments.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint must stand independently without reference to her initial filing and
must contain all claims against all Defendants. In other words, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must
specify the constitutional violation, when it occurred, and the Defendant or Defendants personally
involved.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this
Order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the
dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended
complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. The amended complaint
must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted.
ENTERED: 10/19/2023
s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
United States District Judge