Wilbourn v. Centralia Correctional Center
3:17-cv-00882
S.D. Ill.Oct 25, 2017Background
- Plaintiff D’Marco Wilbourn, an Illinois inmate, alleges he was raped by cellmate Marcus Riddick on March 16, 2015 at Centralia Correctional Center and waited nearly two years for rape-kit DNA results identifying Riddick.
- Wilbourn reported the assault to internal affairs; both he and Riddick were placed in investigative status and Wilbourn was confined for about six weeks, then transferred and later paroled before receiving results.
- Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary damages and named the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), Centralia Correctional Center, Marcus Riddick, and the Warden of Centralia as defendants.
- The court conducted a preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found multiple pleading defects: failure to state a cognizable § 1983 claim and improper defendants.
- The court dismissed IDOC and Centralia Correctional Center with prejudice (not persons under § 1983), dismissed Riddick with prejudice (not a state actor), and dismissed the Warden without prejudice (no specific allegations). Complaint dismissed without prejudice overall and plaintiff granted 28 days to file an amended complaint.
- Motions for appointed counsel and FOIA relief were denied; service-at-government-expense motion denied as moot. The dismissal may count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) if plaintiff fails to timely amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDOC / Centralia Correctional Center are proper § 1983 defendants | Wilbourn sued them for damages arising from the assault and delay | These entities are state agencies/divisions and not "persons" under § 1983 | Dismissed with prejudice — not persons under § 1983 (Will/Thomas) |
| Whether an inmate assailant (Riddick) can be sued under § 1983 | Wilbourn asserts Riddick raped him and seeks damages | Riddick was a fellow prisoner, not a state actor | Dismissed with prejudice — § 1983 applies only to state actors (Sullivan/Gayman) |
| Whether the Warden is properly alleged as a defendant | Wilbourn named the Warden but included no specific factual allegations against them | Warden lacks notice of specific claims; respondeat superior not applicable in § 1983 | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim; leave to amend granted |
| Whether delay in rape-kit results or investigation gives rise to a constitutional claim | Wilbourn complains of nearly two-year delay and alleged inadequate investigation | No defendant linked to the delay; mere failure to investigate or process grievances is not a constitutional violation | Dismissed for failure to state a claim — no allegation of constitutional deprivation from delay; failure-to-investigate claims not actionable |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolousness standard for in forma pauperis screening)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state agencies are not "persons" under § 1983)
- Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612 (application of Will to Illinois DOC)
- American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (§ 1983 requires state action)
- Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331 (naming a defendant without factual allegations insufficient)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (denial of grievance or investigation does not itself state a constitutional claim)