Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:19CV998-PPS/MGG
01-23-2020
CARL RAY MORRIS, JR., Plaintiff, v. ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Carl Ray Morris, Jr., a prisoner without a lawyer, has filed a complaint against the St. Joseph County Jail and two of its officers - C/O Miller and C/O Worth - because the officers have each indicated that he looks like Fat Bastard, a character in the Austin Powers movies. "A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
As an initial matter, Morris has sued the St. Joseph County Jail, but the jail is a building. It is not a suable entity. Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012). Therefore, he cannot state a claim against the St. Joseph County Jail.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect correctional officers to treat inmates respectfully even if the respect is a one-way street. But for present purposes, unfortunately for Morris, that is neither here nor there. This is because while the conduct, if true, is plainly unprofessional, it does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. What Morris is describing is verbal harassment, and while he may find it humiliating, such harassment does not state a claim. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Savory v. Cannon, No. 17-3543, 2020 WL 240447, at * 10-13 (7th Cir., Jan. 7, 2020) (rude language or verbal harassment by prison staff "while unprofessional and deplorable, does not violate the Constitution.").
Although it is usually necessary to permit a plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint when a case is dismissed sua sponte, see Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013), that is unnecessary where the amendment would be futile. Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) ("[C]ourts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the amendment would be futile."). Such is the case here.
ACCORDINGLY:
The court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it does not state a claim.
SO ORDERED on January 23, 2020.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT