Quillman v. Illinois Department of Corrections
3:18-cv-00137
| S.D. Ill. | Jan 29, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Roberta Nickie Ezell Quillman, a transgender inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center, alleges repeated assaults, sexual abuse, denial of protective custody, and serious mental-health harms, and seeks money damages and placement in protective custody at Pontiac or Stateville.
- Complaint names only the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and Nicholas Lamb (Chief Administrative Officer at Lawrence) as defendants; the body of the complaint does not identify individual staff who allegedly committed the abuses.
- Court performed preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found the complaint subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- Court held IDOC is not a "person" under § 1983 and therefore is dismissed with prejudice as an improper defendant; Lamb remains only as a potential official-capacity injunctive-relief defendant but is not alleged to have personal involvement.
- Court denied recruitment of counsel at this stage, finding Quillman competent to proceed pro se for the purpose of filing an amended complaint and directing her to file a First Amended Complaint identifying individuals and factual involvement.
- Court granted leave to amend by a deadline, warned that failure to timely and properly amend would lead to dismissal with prejudice, and sent a copy of the order to the Lawrence warden for safety notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a § 1983 claim against unnamed staff | Quillman alleges assaults and denial of protective custody by Lawrence staff | IDOC/Lamb argue pleading lacks specific allegations tying named defendants to violations | Court: Dismiss for failure to state a claim; plaintiff must identify individuals and plead personal involvement or use Doe designations |
| Whether IDOC is a proper § 1983 defendant | Quillman sues IDOC for constitutional deprivations | IDOC is a state agency and not a “person” under § 1983 | Court: IDOC dismissed with prejudice as an improper defendant |
| Whether Lamb is liable under § 1983 | Quillman names Lamb but alleges no personal involvement | Lamb cannot be held vicariously for subordinates' actions | Court: No individual-capacity claim stated; Lamb may be sued in official capacity for injunctive relief only, but underlying § 1983 claim must be stated |
| Whether counsel should be appointed | Quillman requested recruited counsel citing disabilities and case difficulty | Court must assess plaintiff’s efforts and ability to litigate | Court: Recruitment denied now; plaintiff appears capable to prepare an amended complaint; may revisit later |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 requires conduct under color of state law)
- Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 1996) (personal involvement required for § 1983 liability)
- Pacelli v. deVito, 972 F.2d 871 (7th Cir. 1992) (supervisory/respondeat superior liability not available under § 1983)
- Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2012) (state agencies not "persons" under § 1983)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual content plausibly showing defendant's unlawful conduct)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleadings must cross the line from conceivable to plausible)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (factors for appointment of counsel in civil rights cases)