Hart v. Riggs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOSHUA JAMES HART, #K84581 )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) Case No. 3:21-cv-00506-DWD

)

SGT. RIGGS, and )

JANE & JOHN DOES, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:

Plaintiff Joshua James Hart, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”), filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged deprivation

of his constitutional rights at Lawrence Correctional Center. This case is now before the

Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any portion of

the Complaint that is legally frivolous, 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).

The Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): Plaintiff was

involved in an altercation with another inmate on September 1, 2020. Correctional Officer

Taylor intervened and held the other inmate on the ground. Plaintiff raised his hands

over his head and backed up to the wall. Shortly thereafter, Sgt. Riggs entered the

dayroom, walked up to Plaintiff, and sprayed him in the face with mace despite the fact

that Plaintiff was no longer fighting and was obeying Taylor’s commands.

Preliminary Dismissal

Plaintiff names Jane & John Does as defendants, which he identifies in the list of

parties as “C/O, Lt. Major, Warden’s, IDOC, etc.,” but makes no allegations against any

Jane or John Does in his statement of claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the

Complaint must include a short, plain statement of the case against each individual.

Merely naming a party in the caption of a Complaint is not enough to state a claim against

that individual. Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Further, to state a

Section 1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that each defendant was personally involved in

the deprivation of a constitutional right. Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014)

(“[I]ndividual liability under § 1983 requires personal involvement in the alleged

constitutional deprivation”). Absent any allegations describing what these individuals

did or failed to do in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, claims against these

individuals cannot proceed and they are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state

a claim. Further, IDOC, a state government agency, is not subject to suit for money

damages under § 1983 and is, therefore, dismissed with prejudice. Will v. Mich. Dep't of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-71 (1989); Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012).

Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following

claim in this pro se action:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Riggs for use of excessive

force on Plaintiff on September 1, 2020 by spraying him with

mace.

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from being subjected to cruel and

unusual punishment. Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 909 (7th Cir. 2005). “Correctional

officers violate the Eighth Amendment when they use force not in a good faith effort to

maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of

causing harm.” Wilborn v. Ealey, 881 F.3d 998, 1006 (7th Cir. 2018) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted). The allegations in the Complaint are sufficient to proceed on

the excessive force claim in Count 1 against Riggs.

Disposition

The Complaint survives review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A in part and is dismissed

in part as follows: Jane & John Does are DISMISSED without prejudice with the

exception that IDOC is DISMISSED with prejudice. Count 1 will proceed against Sgt.

Riggs. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate the Doe Defendants.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Sgt. Riggs: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit

and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of

Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint, and

this Memorandum and Order to Defendant’s place of employment as identified by

Plaintiff. If Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form

6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take

appropriate steps to effect formal service on the Defendant, and the Court will require

the Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

If Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the

employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if not

known, the Defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for

sending the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation

of the address shall be retained only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained in the court

file or disclosed by the Clerk.

Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the

Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant

to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant need only respond to the issues stated in this

Merit Review Order.

Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment

includes the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1915. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).

Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the

Clerk of Court and the opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court

will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not

later than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with

this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in

dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 24, 2021 duu L #9 J

DavidW.Dugan

United States District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the defendant of your lawsuit and serve

him with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved, the defendant will

enter an appearance and file an Answer to the complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days

from the date of this Order to receive the defendant’s Answer, but it is entirely possible

that it will take 90 days or more. When the defendant has filed an Answer, the Court will

enter a Scheduling Order containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and

procedures. Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendant

before filing any motions, to give the defendant notice and an opportunity to respond to

those motions. Motions filed before defendant’s counsel has filed an appearance will

generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at

his time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

The Court wishes to remind the Plaintiff that litigation is often viewed a series of hurdles

that the Plaintiff must clear to get to another hurdle. Initial screening is such a hurdle, but

it is a very low one for the Plaintiff to clear. As noted above, surviving initial screening

only requires the bare statement of a claim that, if proven, could entitle Plaintiff to some

relief. At trial, he will need to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the facts alleged

actually occurred and that those facts satisfy the legal requirements for recovery. Trial is

the highest and most difficult of hurdles for any Plaintiff to clear.