Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

JOSEPH AUSTIN, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 24-3347

)

CHRISTIAN COUNTY JAIL, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

COLLEEN R. LAWLESS, United States District Judge:

Before the Court is a Complaint (Doc. 1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by Plaintiff

Joseph Austin, a detainee at the Christian County Jail (“Jail”).

I. Screening Standard

The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s Complaint 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. Upon

review of the amended pleading, the court accepts the factual allegations as accurate and

construes them liberally in the plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th

Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must

be provided to “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).

II. Factual Allegations

Plaintiff alleges the denial of “mental health treatment and counseling” during his

detention at the Jail. (Doc. 1 at 3.)

III. 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 the defendant fair notice of what the claim 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) (citing Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)); see

also Doe v. Smith, 429 F.3d 706, 708 (7th Cir. 2005) (explaining that plaintiffs “need do no

more than narrate a grievance simply and directly, so that the defendant knows what he

has been accused of”). In addition to describing the claim, a plaintiff must also give “some

indication . . . of time and place.” Thomson v. Washington, 362 F.3d 969, 971 (7th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff names the Jail as a Defendant, which does not state a plausible claim

under §1983. A building, such as a jail or correctional facility, cannot be sued under §

1983. Smith v. Knox Cty. Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012); see also White v. Knight, 710

F. App’x 260, 262 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he fact that a building is owned by a corporate entity

or a government agency does not make the building a suable person under § 1983.”).

Plaintiff only mentions nurse Kedra Sedlacek, noting that she was the “onsite”

nurse, who is “supposed to be onsite whenever needed,” which is insufficient to state a

plausible claim. (Id. at 3.); see also Snyder v. King, 745 F.3d 242, 246 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Section

1983 only permits an individual to sue a ‘person’ who deprives that individual of his or

her federally-guaranteed rights under color of state law.”).

Consequently, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed. However, if Plaintiff believes he

can revise his pleading to state a cause of action, he may file a Motion for Leave to File an

Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff elects to file, his amended pleading must be attached to

his motion for leave.

The Court does not accept piecemeal amendments. Plaintiff’s claims must stand

independently without reference to his initial filing and contain all claims against all

defendants. Plaintiff must specify the constitutional violation, when it occurred, and the

Defendant or Defendants personally involved. See Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561

(7th Cir. 1995) (“To recover damages under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that a

defendant was personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.”).

The Court informs Plaintiff that any attempt to join unrelated claims and

defendants is not permitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). In other words, multiple claims

against a single defendant are allowed, but “Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be

joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George, 507 F.3d at 607.

Additionally, “[l]awsuits brought under § 1983 are governed by the statute of

limitations for personal injury in the state where the injury occurred, which in Illinois is

two years.” Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Brown v. Dart, 876

F.3d 939, 940 (7th Cir. 2017) (“The statute of limitations to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 is determined by state law. Under Illinois law, a plaintiff has two years to bring a

§ 1983 claim.” (internal citation omitted)); Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 722 (7th Cir. 2017)

(pointing out that the limitations period is tolled while a plaintiff pursues the grievance

process).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) under 28 U.S.C.

1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a federal claim on which relief may be granted.

2) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint within thirty

days of the entry of this order and per the Court’s instructions. If Plaintiff does

not comply before the deadline expires, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s case.

ENTERED July 2, 2026.

s/ Coleen R. Lawless

____________________________________

COLLEEN R. LAWLESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE