# Smith v. Dodd

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 23, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155018

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** May 23, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155018

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ANTHONY SMITH, N22143, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
RACHELL DODD, ) Case No. 22-cv-1013-DWD
LANCE ELLINGTON, )
J. CAYWOOD, )
RYAN A. KILDUFF, )
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORR. )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Anthony Smith, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC), brings this civil rights action for alleged issues that have arisen at Robinson
Correctional Center (Robinson). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and
injunctive relief.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is now before the Court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen
prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).
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). At this juncture,
the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that from approximately June 7, 2021, to April 27, 2022, he was
denied access to extra boxers, socks, t-shirts, and towels. (Doc. 1 at 10). Upon arrival at
Robinson, he was issued one set of blue pants and a shirt that were used. He followed
the proper procedures to request new or additional clothing, but his requests were
denied. He was also prevented from buying many additional supplies from the

commissary because he was often told that items were out of stock. He further alleges
that the clothing he brought with him to Robinson during his transfer from Dixon
Correctional Center had become so worn that it was threadbare and see-through.
Plaintiff alleges that he is being treated as less than an animal, and he is embarrassed by
his clothing. Plaintiff claims that normally when an inmate transfers to a new facility, he

is given all new items including a blue uniform, boxers, socks, t-shirts, towels, bedding,
and shoes. (Doc. 1 at 14).
Plaintiff makes broad allegations that his grievances have been delayed or ignored,
the Robinson commissary has unethical practices, and there is retaliation and
discrimination against individuals of color. (Doc. 1 at 11). He also alleges that he has

been denied adequate access to the law library because it lacks many materials and there
are not regular library hours. (Doc. 1 at 14). He suggests that he has been discriminated
against based on his disability, which has made it difficult to get job assignments or
education. (Id.).
Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation of an unspecified amount. (Doc. 1 at 16).
Analysis
Plaintiff’s complaint is insufficient as pled because he has not clearly described the

personal actions of the named defendants in association with his factual allegations. To
state a valid § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant was personally
responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555,
561 (7th Cir. 1995). Here, Plaintiff has not mentioned any of the defendants by name in
the factual allegations of his complaint. If a defendant is named in the caption of a case,

but no claim is presented against that defendant in the body text, the claim may be
dismissed without prejudice as to that defendant. See Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1401 n.
8 (7th Cir. 1994) (it is appropriate to dismiss a defendant if he is named, but there is no
sufficient allegation of personal involvement).
Plaintiff also has not sufficiently described any sort of action or activity by the

defendants that violates the constitution. Allegations that Plaintiff wished for additional
sets of clothing, or that he wanted new clothing, are not sufficient to state a claim for
harmful conditions of confinement. See e.g. Myrick v. Anglin, 496 Fed. Appx. 670, 675 (7th
Cir. 2012) (denial of new clothing or showers that did not exacerbate medical conditions
was not unconstitutional); Windsor v. Ind. Dept. of Corr., 2022 WL 857034 at *2 (N.D. Ind.

2022) (noting that infrequent clothing exchanges do not implicate constitutional concerns
where inmate has the ability to wash the clothes he has); Stanton v. Galipeau, 2021 WL
1723047 at *1 (N.D. Ind. 2021) (finding that inability to change clothes coupled with lack
of access to showers to clean, and unsanitary cells may state a claim); Hardy v. Rauner,
2018 WL 1904288 at *7-8 (S.D. Ill. 2018) (finding that infrequent clothing exchanges and
holes in existing clothing did not constitute an Eighth Amendment claim). Plaintiff’s

factual allegations tend to suggest that he wanted new clothes, but not that he needed
new clothes or that he was suffering some ill side-effect based on the lack of access to
extra clothing. Accordingly, it is possible that even if he amended his complaint, Plaintiff
does not have an adequate factual basis to state a claim.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff cannot bring claims against IDOC, or the State
of Illinois, because these entities are immune from suit. Section 1983 provides a cause of

action for the deprivation of constitutional rights by persons acting under color of state
law. Torres v. Madrid, 141 S.Ct. 989, 994 (2021). “The Eleventh Amendment grants states
immunity from private suits in federal courts without their consent. An agency of the
state receives this same immunity.” Nunez v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 817 F.3d 1042, 1044
(7th Cir. 2016); de Lima Silva v. Dep’t of Corrections, 917 F.3d 546, 565 (7th Cir. 2019). IDOC,

as an agency of the state, is immune from Plaintiff’s claim. Thus, IDOC is dismissed
because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against this state agency. The same goes for
the State itself. Any claims against these entities fail to state a claim because they are
immune.
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s current complaint will be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to state a claim. However, Plaintiff will be given an
opportunity to file an amended pleading. With an opportunity to amend, it is possible
that Plaintiff could state a valid claim concerning the conditions of his confinement. If
Plaintiff chooses to amend, he should carefully describe the personal actions of each
person he names as a defendant. Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date of this Order
to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint will completely replace the earlier

complaint. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir.
2004). Failure to submit an amended complaint on time could result in the dismissal of
this entire lawsuit for failure to state a claim or failure to prosecute. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b);
Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1056-57 (7th Cir. 1997) (dismissal is allowed for failure to
comply with a court order); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Motion for Recruitment of Counsel

In the Motion for Counsel, Plaintiff does not indicate if he has sought counsel on
his own behalf, but he seeks counsel because he has limited access to the law library or
legal resources. (Doc. 4). Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to
counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007); Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288
(7th Cir. 1995). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, this Court has discretion to recruit

counsel to represent indigents in appropriate cases. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001,
1006 (7th Cir. 2006). In evaluating whether counsel should be appointed, this Court must
examine (what are known as) the Pruitt factors and apply them to the specific
circumstances of this case. Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 760 (7th Cir. 2010). The Court
must ask: “‘(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or

been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case,
does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?’” Id. at 761, quoting Pruitt, 503
F.3d at 654. Here, the Court does not yet find it necessary to appoint counsel. Although
Plaintiff’s complaint was not sufficient as pled, this is not indicative of an overall inability
to represent himself. Plaintiff may renew his request for appointment of counsel later in
the litigation if the need arises. Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 4) is
DENIED.

Disposition
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Order.
To assist him with preparing an amended complaint, the Clerk of Court is directed to
mail Plaintiff a copy of the standard civil rights complaint form along with this Order. If
Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, his case may be dismissed for failure to state

a claim or failure to prosecute. A ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Process at
Government Expense (Doc. 5) will be deferred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2022 /s David W. Dugan
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155018. Public record. Not legal advice.