Morton v. Boardman ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION QUINTAN MORTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 23-4117 ) JOHN VARGA, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) MERIT REVIEW ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Illinois River Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now before the Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(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.” Id. 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). Conclusory statements and labels are insufficient—the facts alleged must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Plaintiff appears to allege in his complaint that officials at East Moline Correctional Center issued a disciplinary ticket to Plaintiff that resulted in some form of punishment and that the ticket was later expunged. Plaintiff does not allege which official wrote the ticket, nor does he identify the individuals who conducted the disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff may be able to state a claim, but he must provide more information regarding the circumstances under which the ticket was issued, who issued it, and who imposed the punishment. Plaintiff cannot sue high-ranking prison officials just because these individuals are in charge. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). East Moline Correctional Center is not a “person” amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 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). The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to renew as directed below to permit Plaintiff the opportunity to clarify his allegations and provide any additional information he desires the Court to consider. 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, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. The amended complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. 2) Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank complaint form. 3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Receive Merit Review Order [14] is DENIED as moot. Entered this 11th day of October, 2023. s/Sara Darrow SARA DARROW CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE