Belin v. Fulton County Jail

Filing 10

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 2/2/2017. The plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to plead over. The plaintiff may file an amended complaint, within forty-five (45) days of this order, that states wit h specificity (1) the name of the individuals who deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights, (2) what each of those individuals did or did not do in the alleged deprivation, and (3) describe the conditions he experienced prior to being sent to segregation. The plaintiff's amended complaint shall completely replace his original complaint and will stand on its own without reference to or reliance upon his original complaint. If the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or follo w the court's specific instructions, as outlined in this order, his case may be dismissed. The clerk is directed to provide the plaintiff with a blank complaint form to assist him. Plaintiff's Motions for Counsel 4 6 are denied with lea ve to renew. Plaintiff states that he reached out to attorneys, but has not provided any support for that allegation. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007) (a plaintiff must show that he made a reasonable attempt to obtain counse l on his own). A plaintiff typically does so by providing copies of letters sent to attorneys, and copies of any responses received. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 7 and Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis 9 are denied as moot.(LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 02 February, 2017 01:26:04 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CRAIG BELIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FULTON COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16-CV-1478

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This cause is before the court for a merit review of the plaintiff's claims. The
court is required by 28 U.S.C. '1915A to Ascreen@ the plaintiff=s complaint, and through
such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it A(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.@
In reviewing the complaint, the court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in the 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 Astate a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.@
Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted). The court has
reviewed the complaint and has held a merit review hearing in order to give plaintiff a
chance to personally explain his claims to the court.
Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in disciplinary segregation from the middle of
August 2016 until December 16, 2016, following an altercation he had with another
inmate. Plaintiff alleges he was informed secondhand that Defendant LaFary brought
the charges against him and that the plaintiff was never provided with a hearing.
Plaintiff alleges that he lost all privileges while in segregation.
Plaintiff=s complaint appears to allege a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due
process claim for the alleged failure to provide plaintiff with hearing prior to his
confinement in segregation. Plaintiff, however, is not entitled to the procedural
protections of the due process clause unless the conditions he endured in segregation
imposed an “atypical and significant hardship” in relation to ordinary conditions of
confinement. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Thielman v. Leean, 282 F.3d 478,
484 (7th Cir. 2002) (a prisoner may not create a federal claim “by citing small, incremental
1

deprivations of physical freedom.”). Plaintiff alleges that he was placed on 23-hour
lockdown while in segregation, that he lost commissary privileges, and that he was not
allowed visitation. Plaintiff provides no allegations regarding the conditions he
experienced before he went to segregation. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff an
opportunity to provide more information.
In addition, Plaintiff fails to name any proper defendants. The sole defendant
named in plaintiff’s complaint is the Fulton County Jail. The jail is not a “person”
amenable to suit under Section 1983. See Powell v. Cook County Jail, 814 F. Supp. 757, 758
(N.D. Ill. 1993)(holding the Cook County Jail was not a person under Section 1983).
Plaintiff must specifically identify the individuals responsible for the alleged
constitutional violations in any amended complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

The plaintiff=s complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to plead over.
The plaintiff may file an amended complaint, within forty-five (45) days of
this order, that states with specificity (1) the name of the individuals who
deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights, (2) what each of those
individuals did or did not do in the alleged deprivation, and (3) describe
the conditions he experienced prior to being sent to segregation. The
plaintiff’s amended complaint shall completely replace his original
complaint and will stand on its own without reference to or reliance upon
his original complaint. If the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint
or follow the court=s specific instructions, as outlined in this order, his case
may be dismissed. The clerk is directed to provide the plaintiff with a
blank complaint form to assist him.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Counsel [4][6] are denied with leave to renew.
Plaintiff states that he reached out to attorneys, but has not provided any
support for that allegation. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir.
2007) (a plaintiff must show that he made a reasonable attempt to obtain
counsel on his own). A plaintiff typically does so by providing copies of
letters sent to attorneys, and copies of any responses received.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [7] and Petition
to Proceed in forma pauperis [9] are denied as moot.
Entered this 2nd day of February, 2017.
/s/ Harold A. Baker
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2