Wells v. Mt. Vernon, Illinois

Filing 7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should he wish to proceed with this case, Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint, associating specific Defendants with specific factualallegations within 35 days of the entry of this order. (Amended Pleadings due by 9/14/2016). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/10/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER WELLS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF MT. VERNON, ILLINOIS
Defendant.

Case No. 16−cv–0665−JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Christopher Wells, an inmate in Jefferson County Justice Center in Mount
Vernon, Illinois, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(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.
An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief
Page 1 of 5

can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, a complaint is
plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true,
see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so
sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff’s claim. Brooks v.
Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts “should not accept as adequate
abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements.” Id. At
the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally
construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it
appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal,
although Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint.
The Complaint
On May 11, 2011, Plaintiff, who was then a minor child, was taken into custody by the
Mt. Vernon Police Department. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Plaintiff’s parents or guardians were never
notified that he had been taken into custody, and no attempts to contact Plaintiff’s parents were
made. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Detective Bullard coerced Plaintiff into incriminating himself by telling
Plaintiff that if he showed remorse and identified the shooter in the relevant crime, his case
would be kept in juvenile court. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Plaintiff’s statement was not suppressed. (Doc.
1, p. 3).
Discussion
Page 2 of 5

Here, the only Defendant Plaintiff has named is the City of Mount Vernon itself. In order
to obtain relief against a municipality, a plaintiff must allege that the constitutional deprivations
were the result of an official policy, custom, or practice of the municipality. Monell v. Dept. of
Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); see also Pourghoraishi v. Flying J, Inc., 449 F.3d 751,
765 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has not made that allegation here; his Complaint is only concerned
with the Plaintiff’s own treatment. Nor has Plaintiff pleaded sufficient factual content from
which the Court could infer that Mount Vernon had such an official policy, custom, or practice.
See City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 824 (1985) (“Proof of a single incident of
unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability under Monell unless proof of the
incident includes proof that it was caused by an existing, unconstitutional municipal policy,
which policy can be attributed to a municipal policymaker.”).
Plaintiff does allege that Detective Bullard participated in his unconstitutional
interrogation. However, Bullard is not listed in the case caption. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 10(a), the case caption must contain all parties. Pro se prisoners must comply
with this rule. Cash v. Marion Cnty. Jail, 211 F. App’x 486, 488 (7th Cir. 2006). Moreover, it is
not clear the Bullard actually participated in the conduct at issue here—the failure to notify
Plaintiff’s parents or guardians. The reason that plaintiffs, even those proceeding pro se, for
whom the Court is required to liberally construe complaints, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972), are required to associate specific defendants with specific claims is so these
defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and so they can properly answer
the complaint.

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the
Page 3 of 5

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
Without a clear statement that Bullard was the officer responsible for the alleged constitutional
violation, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should he wish to proceed with this case, Plaintiff
shall file his First Amended Complaint, associating specific Defendants with specific factual
allegations within 35 days of the entry of this order (on or before September 14, 2016). An
amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering the original
complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir.
2004). The Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint. Thus, the
First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any other pleading.
Should the First Amended Complaint not conform to these requirements, it shall be stricken.
Plaintiff must also re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along with the First
Amended Complaint. Failure to file an Amended Complaint shall result in the dismissal of this
action with prejudice. Such dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes”
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
No service shall be ordered on any Defendant until after the Court completes its § 1915A
review of the First Amended Complaint.
In order to assist Plaintiff in preparing his amended complaint, the Clerk is DIRECTED
to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.
Page 4 of 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 10, 2016

s/J. Phil Gilbert
U.S. District Judge

Page 5 of 5