J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
Plaintiff Tony Stork, an inmate at White County Jail located in Carmi, Illinois, filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit for Lawrence County, Illinois. (Doc. 1-1). Plaintiff claims that during his detention at Lawrence County Jail, he was placed in the "drunk tank" on suicide watch for six days without clothing or bedding while the Jail Administrator went on vacation in December 2018. (Id. at pp. 2-8). Plaintiff brings claims under federal and state law against Russell Adams (sheriff), Karen Adams (jail administrator), and Tracy Peters (officer). (Id.). He seeks monetary relief. (Id. at p. 8).
Defendants removed the case to this federal judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1331, and 1343 on July 3, 2019. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff made no objection, and the Court finds that removal is proper.
Section 1915A requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, meritless, 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 liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint: Plaintiff wrote an article about Lawrence County Jail that was published in the local newspaper on or around December 1, 2018. (Doc. 1-1, p. 4). After learning of the article and a local church's donations, Jail Administrator Adams told Plaintiff that the article and donations were "not appreciated" and that Sheriff Adams had authorized her to reject all Christmas donations from the church. (Id.). Jail Administrator Adams also informed Plaintiff that he would be denied access to the Jail's law library until the following Tuesday. (Id.).
Plaintiff admittedly "lost control" and began screaming obscenities at Jail Administrator Adams. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 4-5). She summoned several officers to Plaintiff's cell. (Id.) Jail Administrator Adams and Officer Peters then forced Plaintiff to remove his clothing, by threatening to shoot him with a taser if he refused. (Id. at p. 2). Plaintiff was placed on suicide watch without cause and in violation of state regulations. (Id.). He was housed in the Jail's segregated drunk tank for five or six days while Jail Administrator Adams went on vacation. (Id. at pp. 2-8). Plaintiff was denied all clothing
Based on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to designate the following seven (7) Counts in the Complaint:
The allegations state plausible claims in Count 1 for retaliation under the First Amendment, Count 2 for unconstitutional conditions of confinement under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment, and Count 3 for excessive punishment under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA") claim in Count 4 does not survive screening. Courts considering the issue agree that PREA does not support a private cause of action. See Truly v. Moore, No. 16-cv-00783-NJR, 2017 WL 661507 (S.D. Ill. 2017) (collecting cases and dismissing PREA claim brought under circumstances similar to those described here). Therefore, Count 4 shall be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff cannot pursue his claim against Defendants for violations of state policies regarding inmate suicide watch. A plaintiff cannot use Section 1983 to enforce state regulations or policies. See James v. Pfister, 708 F. App'x 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2017); Hamlin v. Vaudenberg, 95 F.3d 580, 583 (7th Cir. 1996) (dismissing claim that defendants did not comply with applicable state regulations); White v. Olig, 56 F.3d 817, 821 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that "failure to follow procedures mandated by state but not federal law . . . can only establish state law violation" and "are not remedial under Section 1983"). Count 5 shall be dismissed without prejudice.
The negligence claim in Count 6 and emotional distress claim in Count 7 arise under Illinois law. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over both claims because they involve the same facts as the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the bald and conclusory allegations offered in support of these claims do not satisfy the Twombly pleading requirements. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (to survive screening, claim must be "plausible on its face"). Plaintiff states, in conclusory fashion, that Defendants were negligent and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him. While this is certainly possible, his allegations describe no plausible claims for violations of Illinois tort law. Counts 6 and 7 shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7) is
As to
If a 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. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
This matter shall be
Plaintiff is
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved, the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your Complaint. It will likely take at least
The Eighth Amendment governs claims brought by a convicted person, and the Fourteenth Amendment governs claims brought by a pretrial detainee. Currie v. Chabra, 728 F.3d 626, 628-29 (7th Cir. 2013). The allegations support claims in both contexts, so the claims survive preliminary review. The exact legal framework can be determined as the case proceeds.