Feedback

Williams V Sangamon County Jail

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

MASON WILLIAMS,                                                           
Plaintiff,                                                           

v.                                 Case No. 3:25-cv-03164-JEH             

SANGAMON COUNTY JAIL,                                                     
Defendant.                                                           

                   Merit Review Order                                

 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and detained at the Sangamon County Jail, 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).                                   
On May 21, 2025, correctional officer Aaron Conard allegedly gave Plaintiff 
a  breakfast  food  tray  containing  peanut  butter,  which  Plaintiff  is  allergic  to. 
Correctional officer Scogins was the floor officer. Plaintiff alleges they had to send 
nurses to give him medication to prevent him from having an allergic reaction. 
Plaintiff alleges he is “on special trays.” (Doc. 1 at p. 5). Plaintiff does not allege 
that the officers knew he was on special trays or that he told the officers he was 
allergic to peanut butter. Plaintiff also alleges his FOIA papers were thrown away. 
Plaintiff names the Sangamon County Jail as the sole Defendant, but the Jail 
is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. Dye v. Wargo, 253 F.3d 296, 299 
(7th Cir. 2001); see also Nava v. Sangamon Cnty. Jail, No. 14-3090, 2014 WL 1320259, 
at *2 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 2, 2014) (“The ‘Sangamon County Jail’ is not a ‘person’ that may 
be sued under § 1983.”); Wright v. Porter Cnty., No. 12-493, 2013 WL 1176199, at *2 
(N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2013) (“the jail…is a building, not a ‘person’ or even a policy-
making body that can be sued for constitutional violations).              
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to  
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and § 1915A. Plaintiff 
is given leave to file an Amended Complaint within thirty days of this Order. 
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint will replace his original Complaint in its entirety. 
The Amended Complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. 
Piecemeal  amendments  are  not  accepted.  Failure  to  file  a  timely  Amended 
Complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, with prejudice, for failure to 
state a claim.                                                            
Finally, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Pretrial Release stating that he has been 
in jail for six months and has not seen an attorney. (Doc. 3). This Court does not 
have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s underlying criminal case and cannot order his 
release. Plaintiff may reassert his request by filing a motion in his criminal case. 
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.                                             
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:                                             
1)   Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for        
failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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. 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. 
Failure to file a timely Amended Complaint will result in the dismissal of this 
case, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.                       

2)   Plaintiff's Motion for Pretrial Release [3] is DENIED.          

3)   Plaintiff shall immediately inform the Court, in writing, of any 
change in his mailing address. Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change 
in mailing address will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice.  

                                                It is so ordered.    

                   Entered: July 23, 2025                            

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