Ball v. State of Illinois et al

Filing 7

MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 4/19/2016. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel, d/e 5 is DENIED. (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 20 April, 2016 10:52:11 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al.
)
Defendants. )
XAVIER BALL,

16-3063

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at
Pickneyville Correctional Center, brings the present lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inhumane conditions of
confinement related to his incarceration at Western Illinois
Correctional Center. The matter comes before this Court for merit
review under 28 U.S.C. §1915A. In reviewing the complaint, the
Court takes all 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

Page 1 of 5

plausible on its face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir.
2013) (internal citation omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that he endured inhumane conditions of
confinement while incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional
Center (“Western”). Plaintiff makes only conclusory allegations and
does not provide any detail regarding the conditions he alleges were
unconstitutional and in violation of international law. Plaintiff
alleges further that he has made attempts to make prison officials
aware of these conditions to no avail.
ANALYSIS
The standard for analyzing a conditions-of-confinement claim
in the corrections context is well-established: a prison official is
liable for denying a prisoner of his or her basic human needs, but
only if the official is aware of and deliberately indifferent to an
objectively serious risk of harm. Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765,
773 (7th Cir.2008). The court must first determine whether the
conditions at issue were “sufficiently serious” such that “a prison
official's act or omission result[ed] in the denial of the minimal
civilized measure of life's necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
Page 2 of 5

832, 834 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Gillis
v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir.2006). Jail conditions may
be uncomfortable and harsh without violating the Constitution. See
Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 642 (7th Cir.1997). “The
Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither
does it permit inhumane ones[.]” Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586,
590 (7th Cir.1996) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832). Therefore,
“extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-ofconfinement claim.” Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 849, 845 (7th
Cir.1999) (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9).
Plaintiff has not alleged any specific details regarding his
conditions of confinement. Conclusory statements that the
conditions are unconstitutional are not sufficient to state a
plausible claim. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed
to state a constitutional claim. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file
an amended complaint. Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended
complaint, he must provide specific facts of the conditions he
endured.

Page 3 of 5

Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Counsel. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff
has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in this case. In
considering the Plaintiff’s motion, the Court asks: (1) has the
indigent Plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or
been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the
difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate
it himself? Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007)
(citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir.1993)). Plaintiff
has not shown that he made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel
on his own. A plaintiff usually does this by attaching copies of
letters sent to attorneys seeking representation and copies of any
responses received. Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the first
prong, the Court does not address the second. Plaintiff’s motion is
denied with leave to renew.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order
to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended
complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without
prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended
complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its
Page 4 of 5

entirety. Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all
allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are
not accepted.
2)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel [5] is DENIED.

ENTERED:

April 19, 2016.

FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5