Eslinger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

ANGELA ESLINGER, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 26-3091-SEM-DJQ

)

SONS OF SILENCE, et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Angela Eslinger, proceeding pro se and currently in

custody at Logan Correctional Center, filed the original Complaint

(#1) in this case on March 11, 2026. The court subsequently

entered a Merit Review Order (#13), finding that Plaintiff had failed

to state a claim and granting 21 days to replead. Plaintiff has now

filed an Amended Complaint (#17), so the court proceeds once more

to a merit review.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint proves difficult to parse. She

alleges that an organization known as the Sons of Silence put a

1

“hit” on her, which was executed daily and nightly by inmate

members of the club.

Plaintiff also alleges that she has “been hit/harassed/raped

falsely accused and violated sexually,” though she does not say by

whom. She sent a complaint to the John Howard Association about

the 70 sexual batteries she suffered, but she was only sent a

standard form in response.

Plaintiff raises a series of allegations that appear to relate to

her underlying criminal proceedings. Namely, she filed an appeal to

the Edgar County Courthouse but was ignored. And her petition of

actual innocence was not taken seriously.

Plaintiff takes exception to certain practices within the prison

as well. She complains of graffiti on the walls and alleges that a

tariff is being imposed on “state pay.” Plaintiff writes “excessive

force” in one bullet point in her Amended Complaint, but never

expounds on that.

Other allegations in the Complaint skew more fanciful.

Plaintiff alleges that the Sons of Silence have been conducting

seances in the prison. She also maintains that a “secret society”

2

known as Mastery of Masons has been operating within the prison’s

walls. Plaintiff is concerned that Masons are being bused into the

prison from other areas. Plaintiff also makes a vague reference to

“kill[ing] or poach[ing] human.”

Analysis

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must “screen”

Plaintiff’s complaint and, through such process, identify and

dismiss any legally insufficient claim or the entire action if

warranted. A claim is defective 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.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted

as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

3

Plaintiff has again failed to state a claim. As explained in the

Court’s prior Order, to establish liability under section 1983, “the

plaintiff must show that the relevant official ‘caused the

constitutional deprivation at issue’ or ‘acquiesced in some

demonstrable way in the alleged constitutional violation.’” Gonzalez

v. McHenry County, 40 F.4th 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting

Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003)). Put

another way, a plaintiff must allege that the individual defendant

“caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation.” Pepper v.

Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 805, 810 (7th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint does not even name an individual associated

with the prison, let alone one who might be held liable for the harm

Plaintiff has suffered.1

The primary targets of Plaintiff’s allegations seem to be the

Sons of Silence and the Mastery of Masons, societies or clubs

operating within the prison. But, setting aside the question of what

these organizations may have done to deprive Plaintiff of her

1 Nor is it at all clear who Plaintiff seeks to hold responsible for ignoring her

appeal or not taking seriously her actual innocence claim.

4

constitutional rights, there is no plausible inference to be drawn

that they might be considered “state actors” for the purposes of

attaching liability under section 1983. See Manzanales v. Krishna,

113 F. Supp. 3d 972, 980 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (“Section 1983

encompasses government employees and, under certain

circumstances, also non-government employees who are employed

by a private entity but provide services to the government.”).

As the Court noted in its prior Order, courts should generally

allow pro se litigants an opportunity to amend their complaint

before dismissing a case. See Johnson v. Piontek, 799 F. App’x 418,

420 (7th Cir. 2020) (“Courts should grant pro se litigants leave to

amend a complaint at least once, unless it is certain from the face

of the complaint that amendment would be futile or otherwise

unwarranted.”). The patent deficiencies of the original Complaint

notwithstanding, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend. In

doing so, the Court wrote:

[I]f Plaintiff files a proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff

should pay attention to the dictates of this Order and should

identify the person or persons who allegedly violated her

Constitutional rights, and Plaintiff should allege how that

person or those persons violated her Constitutional rights. If

5

Plaintiff does not comply with this Order or if she does not

submit a proposed amended complaint timely, the Court will

dismiss this case.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint suffers from the same

fundamental shortcomings as her original pleading. She has not

complied with the Court’s clear instructions. Furthermore, the

Court is concerned by the increase in frivolous allegations in

Plaintiff’s latest filing. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33

(1992) (defining frivolous allegations as those that are clearly

baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional). The Court therefore

finds that further amendment would be futile and dismisses

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (#17) is dismissed with

prejudice.

2. This matter is terminated.

ENTERED June 12, 2026.

s/ Sue E. Myerscough

________________________________

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6