Slack v. Court et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: The entire action and all claims against Defendants for 5th, 8th or 14th Amendment violations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and will be DISMISSED without prejudice. All Defendants shall be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is advised that the dismissal of this action will count as one of his three allotted "strikes" under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/19/2012. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RAY T. SLACK, SR., N-97934,
Plaintiff,

vs.
ANTHONY COURT,
DONALD BUNT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-1194 MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), has
brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for incidents occurring while
he was a detainee at Madison County Jail. Plaintiff is now serving a forty year sentence for
conviction of murder, armed robbery and sexual assault. Plaintiff states that he has not filed a
grievance in this matter because Madison County Jail does not have a grievance process
available.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant Court, a sergeant at Madison County Jail, made
racially offensive remarks in his presence. Plaintiff complained to Defendant Bunt, the jail
administrator but did not receive a response. He requests monetary damages for psychological
trauma and request treatment classes for the defendants.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

1

(a) Screening. – The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as
soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal. – On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint–
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief
Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
articulate a colorable federal cause of action against any defendant.
Not all racial insensitivity violates the Constitution. The Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit has stated flatly that “the use of racially derogatory language, while
unprofessional and deplorable, does not violate the Constitution. Standing alone, simple verbal
harassment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, deprive a person of a protected
liberty interest or deny a prisoner equal protection of the laws.” DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607,
612 (7th Cir.2002).
Defendant Court’s remarks consist of a single comment, made to someone other
than Plaintiff, but uttered in his presence. The conduct does not rise to the level of constitutional
violation. This claim shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Additionally, the claim against Defendant Bunt is dismissed on initial review
because the doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to § 1983 actions. Sanville v.
McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged
that Defendant Bunt is “personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.” Id.
Accordingly, Bunt is DISMISSED as a defendant.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED as moot (Doc. 3).

2

Disposition
The entire action and all claims against Defendants for 5th, 8th or 14th Amendment
violations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and will be DISMISSED without
prejudice. All Defendants shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff is advised that the dismissal of this action will count as one of his three
allotted “strikes” under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the
filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350
remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467
(7th Cir. 1998).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 19, 2012

s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

3