Pate v. Shawnee Correctional Center

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JASON PATE, Y38444, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

) Case No. 22-cv-837-DWD

SHAWNEE CORR. CENTER, )

IDOC, )

WARDEN OF SHAWNEE, )

PAROLE BOARD, )

WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE. )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:

Plaintiff Jason Pate, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC),

brings this civil rights action for alleged issues that have arisen in the IDOC or at

Pinckneyville or Shawnee Correctional Centers (Pinckneyville and Shawnee). (Doc. 1).

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s

original complaint (Doc. 1) for failure to state a claim, and it provided an opportunity for

him to file an Amended Complaint (Doc. 17).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) 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 Amended Complaint

As with the original complaint, on the cover page of the amended complaint,

Plaintiff checked boxes for claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80. (Doc. 17 at 1). Plaintiff’s

allegations are difficult to follow, though they are legible. He indicates that he did not

exhaust the grievance procedure as to any claims presented in his lawsuit. He then

alleges that he wants his “freedom back” and his “freedom of speech.” He seems to allege

that he believes his incarceration has not been legitimate. He seeks 25.8 million dollars

for wrongful death, and 75,000-150,000 in back pay for his time in the IDOC. He also

seeks 90 days credit.

Analysis

A state inmate generally has legal recourse in federal court for two broad types of

lawsuits. He can bring a claim about the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, or he can bring a claim about the fact or duration of his confinement via the habeas

corpus statutes. Plaintiff has attempted to pursue habeas corpus relief in a separate case

in this District, Pate v. IDOC, 22-cv-431-SPM, but that case was dismissed for failure to

prepare an adequate and comprehensible petition. In the original complaint filed in this

lawsuit Plaintiff made allegations that appeared related to the conditions of his

confinement, which would be consistent with § 1983, but he did not tie his factual

allegations to the personal actions of individual defendants as is required to state a

sufficient claim. See, Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995). Suspecting that

Plaintiff may wish to pursue a § 1983 claim, the Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to

file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended pleading is not sufficient to state a claim under § 1983 because

he does not identify any actions by individuals that violated his constitutional rights.

Plaintiff names two individuals that may be subject to a § 1983 claim—the Wardens of

Pinckneyville and Shawnee—but he does not describe any personal actions by these

individuals so any claim against them is insufficient.

As to the other Defendants Plaintiff names—the IDOC, the Parole Board, or

Shawnee Correctional Center—he was previously informed that these entities are not

subject to suit under § 1983. “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 Parole Board and

Shawnee. Any claims against these entities are subject to dismissal.

The Court also notes that although Plaintiff checked the box for an FTCA claim on

the first page of his pleading, he has no obvious basis to bring claims under the FTCA,

because it authorizes “civil actions on claims against the United States, for money

damages…for…personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or

omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office

or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). The FTCA is designed to allow redress against

federal officials. See, Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 693 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff is a state

inmate, so it is unclear how he would have any valid claim against the United States

under the FTCA.

Finally, the Court notes that although it is not obvious if or how Plaintiff has any

basis for a wrongful death lawsuit, any such action would be premised on state tort law,

so it does not fall within this Court’s limited jurisdiction.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff will not be given a second chance to amend

his complaint because it is not obvious that Plaintiff has identified any facts that would

warrant relief under § 1983, so further amendment would be futile. See Zimmerman v.

Bornick, 25 F.4th 491, 493-94 (7th Cir. 2022) (a district court has discretion to deny leave to

amend if an amendment would be futile or unwarranted).

Disposition

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is

DENIED as MOOT in light of the dismissal of this case. This Order resolves all claims

against all parties, so the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly

and to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2023 ede i eT

DAVID W. DUGAN

United States District Judge