Hawkins v. McLean County Detention Facility et al

Filing 8

MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 6/15/2016: IT IS ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 2) Plaintiff may file an amended co mplaint by July 7, 2016. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint or Plaintiff's amended complaint still fails to state a claim, then this action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim and a strike will be assessed against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the amended complaint will replace the original complaint. Piecemeal amendments are not permitted. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER & OPINION)(JRK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 15 June, 2016 08:32:38 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRENTAIS C. HAWKINS,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MCLEAN COUNTY DETENTION
)
FACILITY and OFFICER T. BOYLE, )
et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)

16-CV-1157

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
Plaintiff filed this case pro se from his detention in the McLean
County Detention Facility. The case is before the Court for a merit
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

1

In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in 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

1

 A prisoner  who has had three prior actions dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous or malicious can 
no longer proceed in forma pauperis (without prepaying the filing fee in full) unless the prisoner is under 
“imminent danger of serious physical injury.”  28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Page 1 of 4 

face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted
cite omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that he was booked into the McLean County
Jail on a residential burglary charge on April 27, 2016. Officer
Boyle instructed Plaintiff to go to the restroom and change into a
jump suit. Officer Boyle followed Plaintiff into the restroom and told
Plaintiff, “‘I need to look up your keyster’ in a joking manner.”
(Complaint.) Plaintiff thought Officer Boyle was kidding until
Officer Boyle donned gloves and told Plaintiff to “drop ‘em.” Id.
Officer Boyle “then began to make personal jokes about [Plaintiff’s]
body, saying, ‘Are you sure you’re black?’ which made [Plaintiff]
completely uncomfortable.” Id. Plaintiff did not give his consent to
the strip search nor was there a warrant or probable cause for the
strip search.
A jail policy of strip searching detainees is constitutional if the
detainees are joining the jail’s general population and the policy is
applied uniformly to all detainees joining the general population.
See Fonder v. Kankakee County, 2016 WL 3027698 (7th Cir.
2016)(discussing Florence v. Burlington County, 132 S.Ct. 1510
(2012). The justification is to ensure that no contraband is
Page 2 of 4 

smuggled into the jail. Id. However, the strip searches cannot be
conducted in a way that is unnecessarily degrading or demeaning,
for example, by groping a detainee’s private areas for an officer’s
sexual gratification, unnecessarily touching the detainee’s
unclothed body, or intentionally humiliating or degrading the
detainee for no legitimate penological purpose. See Florence v.
Burlington County, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012)(strip searching detainees
before they entered jail’s general population was constitutional were
the detainee’s unclothed body was not touched); Washington v.
Hively, 695 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2012)(trial necessary to resolve
whether guard touched inmate’s private parts during search to
humiliate inmate or to gratify guard’s sexual desires); Calhoun v.
DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003)(several guards observed
strip search, laughing at the inmate, making “sexually ribald
comments,” making inmate perform “provocative acts,” and
“point[ing] their stick towards his anal area” when inmate bent
over).
Plaintiff recounts only one unprofessional remark by Officer
Boyle during the search—“Are you sure you’re black?” While the
Court does not condone this remark, Plaintiff seems more focused
Page 3 of 4 

on the fact that a strip search was conducted at all, rather than the
manner in which the strip search was conducted. Plaintiff will be
given leave to file an amended complaint to describe the strip
search in more detail.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
2) Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by July 7, 2016. If
Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint or Plaintiff’s amended
complaint still fails to state a claim, then this action will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim and a strike will be assessed
against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). If Plaintiff files an
amended complaint, the amended complaint will replace the
original complaint. Piecemeal amendments are not permitted.
ENTERED: 6/15/2016
FOR THE COURT:
s/James E. Shadid
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4