Feedback

Collazo V Does

                        IN THE                                       
           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              
        FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS                         
                   PEORIA DIVISION                                   

GEOVANNIE COLLAZO,                                                        
Plaintiff,                                                           

v.                                 Case No. 1:25-cv-01218-JEH             

JOHN/JANE DOES 1-6,                                                       
Defendants.                                                          

                   Merit Review Order                                

 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, 
filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional 
rights. (Doc. 1). This case is before the Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s 
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s 
Complaint  and  dismiss  any  legally  insufficient  claim  or  the  entire  action  if 
warranted. § 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. In reviewing the 
Complaint, 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). 
However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be 
provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United 
States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).             
                           I                                         
Plaintiff alleges he had a video visit with his family at a kiosk on December 
4, 2024. During the video visit, he was shackled to a chair while other inmates 
moved around him. Minutes after his video visit began, Plaintiff alleges the gallery 
gate opened, and the correctional officers vanished around the corner. Plaintiff 
alleges government informants, “Jane Doe & John,” brutally assaulted him. (Doc. 
1 at p. 4). Plaintiff claims unidentified correctional officers ordered “the hit.” Id. 
Plaintiff also indicates that twenty-two unidentified correctional officers were 
aware of the life-threatening imminent harm because they conspired as a group to 
assault him. Id. at pp. 4-5. After the attack, Plaintiff alleges that “c/o John & Jane 
Doe 1-22” denied him medical treatment to conceal his injuries.           
                           II                                        
It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to allege excessive force, failure-to-
intervene, and deliberate indifference claims, among others. However, it is unclear 
from his Complaint how each Defendant was involved. On the first page of his 
Complaint, Plaintiff names John & Jane Doe 21 and Informant 1 as Defendants. 
(Doc. 1 at p. 1). On the second page, Plaintiff names John & Jane Doe 1-6 as 
Defendants. Id. at p. 2. In other parts of his Complaint, he refers to “Jane Doe & 
John”  and  “John  &  Jane  Doe  1-22.”  Id.  at  pp.  4-5.  Due  to  Plaintiff’s  vague 
allegations, it is impossible for the Court to identify the specific allegations against 
each Defendant and determine whether there are potential claims against any of 
them.                                                                     
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 states a complaint must include “a short 
and plan statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of this rule is to “give defendants fair notice of the 
claims against them and the grounds for supporting the claims.” Stanard v. Nygren, 
658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff’s Complaint does not give Defendants adequate 
notice of his claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT 
PREJUDICE as a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.            
The  Court  will  allow  Plaintiff  the  opportunity  to  file  an  Amended 
Complaint within thirty days of this  Order. His Amended Complaint MUST   
clearly state what happened, when it happened, which Defendants were involved, 
how each Defendant was involved, and any harm Plaintiff suffered. Plaintiff 
MUST also provide the date each allegation occurred or a specific timeframe.  
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:                                                  
1)   Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as a       
violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from 
the entry of this Order to file an Amended Complaint. Failure to file a timely 
Amended Complaint or to follow the instructions in this Order will result in the 
dismissal  of  this  case,  with  prejudice.  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)   Plaintiff shall immediately inform the Court, in writing, of any 
change in his mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff's failure to 
notify the Court of a change in mailing address or phone number will result in 
dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice.                                

                                                It is so ordered.    

                   Entered: July 22, 2025                            

                  s/Jonathan E. Hawley                               
                    U.S. District Judge