Opinion
No. 99 C 4459.
February 22, 2000.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Tony Speights, currently being detained at the Cook County Jail, filed this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging eleven violation of his constitutional rights by various government entities and the State of Illinois. Before the court is Speights's application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The court finds that Speights, detained at the Cook County Jail, is unable to prepay the filing fee. The court grants Speights's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and assesses an initial partial filing fee of $2.33 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1). The trust fund officer at Speights's current place of incarceration is ordered to collect, when funds exist, the partial filing fee from Speights's trust fund account and pay it directly to the clerk of court. Thereafter, the trust fund officer at the correctional facility where Speights is confined is directed to collect monthly payments from Speights's trust fund account in the amount of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to the account. Monthly payments collected from Speights's trust fund account shall be forwarded to the clerk of court each time the account balance exceeds $10 until the full $150 filing fee is paid. Separate deductions and payments shall be made with respect to each action or appeal filed by Speights. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60604, attn: Fiscal Dept., and shall clearly identify Speights's name and the case number assigned to this action.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss a suit brought in forma pauperis at any time if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Speights enumerates eleven different claims against the named defendants. As a preliminary matter, Speights's complaint is deficient because he gives no facts but makes conclusory claims about the violations of his rights. In addition, the complaint fails to clarify which defendant(s) is responsible for the different harms enumerated. The complaint is also deficient because Speights does not name any individuals in his complaint (or the factual narrative) and only names the following government entities as defendants: the State of Illinois, the County of Cook, the City of Chicago, the City of Markham, and the City of Bridgeview.
The State of Illinois may not be sued in this forum because the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits actions against a state without its consent. State officials may be sued in their individual capacities; however, Speights makes no reference to any state official in his complaint that would identify any state actor as responsible for any of the constitutional violations alleged. Because the Eleventh Amendment bars any claims against the state, no claims may be brought against the State of Illinois. See Campbell v. IDOC, 907 F. Supp. 1173 (N.D.Ill. 1995).
Claims 1, 2, and 9, allege that Speights is being detained at Cook County Jail against his will and that the criminal case pending against him is a "farce, travisty [sic] and sham." (Complaint, p. 6). Speights seeks monetary damages and his release from jail. To the extent that Speights is challenging the authority of the state and/or county to detain him and seeking release from the Cook County Jail, Speights's sole remedy is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). To the extent that Speights is attacking the actual process of the criminal proceeding, Speights's claim appears to be premature. A plaintiff may not bring a § 1983 claim that implies the invalidity of the underlying conviction. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1996). It is true that Speights has not yet been convicted, but this does not undermine the rationale of Heck; Speights's claim (if any) challenging the basis of the pending criminal case or for any other constitutional violation is not yet ripe because the final outcome of the criminal proceeding is not known at this time. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, and 9 are dismissed for failure to state a claim.
In claim numbered 3, 4, and 11, Speights states that "they" have shown racial and sexual biases in hiring practices. Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 impose the standing requirement of bona fide applicant for claims of employment discrimination. Allen v. Prince George's County, 538 F. Supp. 833 (D.Md. 1982). Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc'y, 657 F. Supp. 1022, 1032 (M.D.Ga. 1987). Speights does not allege he was denied employee due to any bias; therefore, he lacks standing to challenge the hiring practices of the defendants. According, claims 3, 4, and 11, and dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Claims 5 and 6 relate to the health care administered at the Cook County Jail. Speights states that the care is inadequate and he is taking medication against his will. To establish a claim for denial of medical services premised on the Eighth Amendment, Speights must show (1) that the deprivation was objectively "serious" and (2) that the prison officials acted with "deliberate indifference" to the medical needs of plaintiff. Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). The dissatisfaction or disagreement with the extent of treatment or inability to affect a final cure does not suggest that those who treat an inmate exhibited deliberate indifference. Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir. 1996); Estate of Cole by Pardue v. Fromm, 94 F.3d 254 (7th Cir. 1996); Meriweather v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 413 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 935 (1987). To characterize the medical treatment available at the Cook County Jail as "inadequate" or treatment as undesired without any claim of actual harm does not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. Speights fails to allege any facts supporting a claim that any person was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Even if being forced to take medication against one's will implicates Speights' constitutional rights, he may not may not bring a claim "for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Speights does not allege any physical injury. Accordingly, claims 5 and 6 are dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Speights alleges in claim 8 that the jail has "poor resources" to file suit against the state and/or Cook County. As the Supreme Court has held, an inmate cannot establish the actual injury required to show denial of access to the courts simply by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is sub-par in some theoretical sense. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Walters v. Edgar, 163 F.3d 430, 433 (7th Cir. 1998). Lewis requires a plaintiff to show two things to succeed on an access to the courts claim: (1) an adequacy in the assistance provided by the prison; and (2) some actual injury or prejudice resulting from the inadequacy. Lewis, 510 U.S. at 346-60. Speights does not allege that he suffered any injury or prejudice resulting from the inadequate law library. Accordingly, claim 8 is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Claim 7 alleges police harassment in the "cities of Illinois." Although police harassment may be egregious enough to support a civil rights claim, Speights fails to allege any facts and his bare conclusory allegation is insufficient to state a claim. Accordingly, claim 7 is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
In claim 10, Speights states "the people of this state feed off the weak, lame and cripple like leiches [sic]." (Complaint, p. 6). The court is unable to discern any theory of constitutional rights or violations in this statement. Claim 10 is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Speights states in his final claim that due to "sexual prejudice" in the hiring practices of the cities of Chicago, Markham, and Harvey, he has been harassed. While sexual harassment of a person in custody may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment claim, see Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 1998); Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857, 861 (2nd Cir. 1997); Adkins v. Rodriquez, 59 F.3d 1034 (10th Cir. 1995); Jones v. Culinary Manager II, 30 F. Supp.2d 491 (E.D.Pa 1998), Speights does not allege that he suffered any physical harm or injury as result of the alleged harassment. As a individual confined to a correctional institute, Speights may not bring a claim "for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Speights does not allege any physical injury, so he cannot recover in federal court for harassment alone, no matter how outrageous. Accordingly, claim 11 is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
This suit is accordingly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is warned that if a prisoner has had a total of three federal cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim, he may not file suit in federal court without prepaying the filing fee unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g).
If plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Rule 4(a)(4), Fed.R.App.P. If he does so, he will be liable for the $105 appellate filing fee. Unless he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, he will have to pay the fee immediately. If he cannot do so, the appeal will be dismissed, but he will remain liable for the fee and it will be deducted from his inmate trust fund account in installments. Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 434 (7th Cir. 1997). If this court finds that appeal is not taken in good faith, and the Court of Appeals agrees, he will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and pay the fee in installments, but will have to pay the fee immediately or the appeal will be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3); Newlin, 123 F.3d at 433-34. To avoid a finding that the appeal is not taken in good faith, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should explain the grounds for the appeal. See Newlin, 123 F.3d at 433.