Micheal Attaway v. Darren Galloway, William Isaiah Shanholtzer, Miguel Navarette, Zachary Moore, and Other Unknown Defendants

Summary

The court grants Micheal Attaway leave to proceed in forma pauperis and permits an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Darren Galloway and an ADA/Rehabilitation Act claim against the Illinois Department of Corrections to proceed. The court dismisses claims concerning alleged forgery, perjury, and conspiracy, dismisses certain defendants, and directs service of the surviving claims.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Galloway, so Count 1 may proceed.
2. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act claim could not proceed against Galloway in his individual capacity, but the claim could proceed against the Illinois Department of Corrections, which was added as a defendant.
3. Alleged forgery and perjury did not state a constitutional, civil-rights, or private civil cause of action, so Count 3 and Moore were dismissed without prejudice.
4. The complaint did not state a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim because it offered only a conclusory assertion of conspiracy without supporting factual allegations, so Count 4 was dismissed without prejudice.
5. Shanholtzer and Navarette were dismissed with prejudice because an inmate is not a state actor under § 1983. The unknown defendants were dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to identify them or allege what each did.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Galloway.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim based on Plaintiff's housing despite his disabilities, and whether such claims could proceed against an individual employee.
3. Whether an inmate's alleged forgery and perjury supported a constitutional or civil-rights claim.
4. Whether Plaintiff adequately pleaded a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
5. Whether the inmate defendants and unidentified defendants were proper parties to the action.

Disposition

other