3:13-cv-00696
S.D. Ill.Aug 9, 2013Background
- Dennis Lewis, an inmate at Vienna Correctional Center, filed a pro se §1983 action claiming unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
- Lewis alleges arrival at Vienna on April 26, 2013 and placement in Building 19, on the second and third floors.
- The complaint is scattershot and largely unintelligible, incorporating a string of legal terms and phrases; it seeks $50 million in damages.
- The case is reviewed under 28 U.S.C. §1915A to screen for frivolousness and failure to state a claim.
- The court concludes the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim.
- Vienna Correctional Center, a division of the Illinois Department of Corrections, is not a ‘person’ under §1983 and must be dismissed from the action with prejudice; plaintiff may amend to name individual prison employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the complaint state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim? | Lewis asserts constitutional deprivation from confinement conditions. | Defendant contends the pleading is deficient and not actionable under Eighth Amendment standards. | Complaint fails to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. |
| Is Vienna Correctional Center a proper §1983 defendant? | Vienna Center is the direct subject of the alleged deprivation. | Will and related authorities hold states or state agents are not ‘persons’ under §1983; Vienna Center cannot be sued. | Vienna Correctional Center is not a proper defendant and is dismissed with prejudice. |
| May the plaintiff amend to cure the deficiencies? | Amendment should provide proper factual basis and identify responsible defendants. | Amendment must comply with pleading standards and name individual defendants. | Plaintiff may amend by filing a First Amended Complaint naming individual defendants by September 13, 2013. |
| What is the effect of the amended complaint replacing the original? | Amendment would replace the original pleading with a complete new statement. | Amended complaint supersedes the original and cannot rely on it. | Amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original; piecemeal amendments are not permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard for §1915A claims)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard applied to complaints)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (subjective component of Eighth Amendment claim)
- McNeil v. Lane, 16 F.3d 123 (7th Cir. 1994) (objective/subjective analysis for conditions claims)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (deprivation of basic life necessities must be shown)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard in prison conditions cases)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state officials not ‘persons’ under §1983; Eleventh Amendment considerations)
- Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2001) (proper defendant identification in §1983 actions)
- Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2004) (amended pleading requirements in the Seventh Circuit)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state actors and §1983 immunity)
- Jackson v. Duckworth, 955 F.2d 21 (7th Cir. 1992) (objective component of cruel and unusual punishment analysis)
- Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2011) (pleading standards in the Seventh Circuit)