UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
MARK GRIFFITH, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:26-cv-4169-SEM-DJQ ) HILL CORRECTIONAL ) CENTER, et al., ) Defendants. )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff pro se Mark Griffith, who is currently incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center, filed an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion to Request Counsel. (Docs. 13, 16). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel is denied. I. Background On June 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. (Doc. 1). On June 30, 2026, the Northern District transferred Plaintiff’s case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), as the events described in Plaintiff’s Complaint occurred at Hill Correctional Center (“Hill”), which is located in
Knox County, Illinois. (Doc. 5). Thus, venue was proper in the Central District. See 28 U.S.C. § 93(b). Prior to merit review, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, which was docketed as a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), a Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 11), and a Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 13).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis were granted on July 16, 2026.
II. Screening Standard The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and dismiss any legally insufficient claim or the entire action if
warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 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 Amended Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as accurate, liberally construing them in 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).
III. Facts Alleged At all times relevant to his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was an inmate at Hill. Plaintiff names Hill, the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), and IDOC Director Latoya Hughes as Defendants. (Doc. 16 at p. 2). Plaintiff states that he was housed in cell 18D in 1 House
and cell 79C in 2 House between October 1, 2025, and February 26, 2026. Plaintiff alleges that both cells had mold, asbestos, and bugs and there was no heat in the winter.
Plaintiff alleges that mold and fungus were present in the showers, and he was denied a shower between October 3-12, 2025. Plaintiff states that his food was often served cold, the water was contaminated, other inmates smoked around him,
there were frequent lockdowns, and he did not receive adequate yard time. Plaintiff also claims that he was denied mental health treatment and his medication. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he was not permitted to attend his father’s funeral
by video on an unspecified date. IV. Analysis Plaintiff named the IDOC and Hill as Defendants, but the
IDOC and Hill are not “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official
capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”). Furthermore, the IDOC and Hill, as State agencies, enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity in a suit for money damages. Wynn v. Southward,
251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff also named Director Hughes as a Defendant, but Plaintiff did not include any allegations against Defendant
Hughes in the body of his Amended Complaint. Defendant Hughes is not liable based solely on her supervisory role as IDOC Director. See Brown v. Randle, 847 F.3d 861, 865 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Public officials are accountable for their own
conduct, but they are not vicariously liable for the acts of their subordinates.”). If state prison officials are named, they must be named in their individual capacities, and Plaintiff must allege that the official personally participated in the
deprivation or was deliberately reckless as to the misconduct of subordinates or was aware and condoned, acquiesced, or turned a blind eye to it. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724,
740 (7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and § 1915A. The Court will allow Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a
timely Second Amended Complaint, or if the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief, his case will be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint will replace Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its entirety. The Second Amended Complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. V. Motion to Request Counsel Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Counsel asking the
Court to appoint counsel to represent him. (Doc. 13). “There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation.” Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014). When
evaluating a Motion to Request Counsel, the Court must consider: “(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from
doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 2007). Demonstrating a
reasonable effort to obtain representation typically requires submitting letters from several attorneys declining assistance and copies of any documents which show Plaintiff tried to find
an attorney. See Olson, 750 F.3d at 711. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable attempt to secure his own lawyer. Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong of Pruitt, the Court does not address the second.
Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED, with leave to renew. If Plaintiff renews his Motion, he is directed to attach copies of letters he sent to or received from prospective counsel, list the attorneys
or law firms he contacted, and indicate whether he received a response. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
MARK GRIFFITH, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:26-cv-4169-SEM-DJQ ) HILL CORRECTIONAL ) CENTER, et al., ) Defendants. )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff pro se Mark Griffith, who is currently incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center, filed an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion to Request Counsel. (Docs. 13, 16). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel is denied. I. Background On June 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. (Doc. 1). On June 30, 2026, the Northern District transferred Plaintiff’s case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), as the events described in Plaintiff’s Complaint occurred at Hill Correctional Center (“Hill”), which is located in
Knox County, Illinois. (Doc. 5). Thus, venue was proper in the Central District. See 28 U.S.C. § 93(b). Prior to merit review, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, which was docketed as a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), a Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 11), and a Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 13).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis were granted on July 16, 2026.
II. Screening Standard The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and dismiss any legally insufficient claim or the entire action if
warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 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 Amended Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as accurate, liberally construing them in 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).
III. Facts Alleged At all times relevant to his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was an inmate at Hill. Plaintiff names Hill, the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), and IDOC Director Latoya Hughes as Defendants. (Doc. 16 at p. 2). Plaintiff states that he was housed in cell 18D in 1 House
and cell 79C in 2 House between October 1, 2025, and February 26, 2026. Plaintiff alleges that both cells had mold, asbestos, and bugs and there was no heat in the winter.
Plaintiff alleges that mold and fungus were present in the showers, and he was denied a shower between October 3-12, 2025. Plaintiff states that his food was often served cold, the water was contaminated, other inmates smoked around him,
there were frequent lockdowns, and he did not receive adequate yard time. Plaintiff also claims that he was denied mental health treatment and his medication. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he was not permitted to attend his father’s funeral
by video on an unspecified date. IV. Analysis Plaintiff named the IDOC and Hill as Defendants, but the
IDOC and Hill are not “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official
capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”). Furthermore, the IDOC and Hill, as State agencies, enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity in a suit for money damages. Wynn v. Southward,
251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff also named Director Hughes as a Defendant, but Plaintiff did not include any allegations against Defendant
Hughes in the body of his Amended Complaint. Defendant Hughes is not liable based solely on her supervisory role as IDOC Director. See Brown v. Randle, 847 F.3d 861, 865 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Public officials are accountable for their own
conduct, but they are not vicariously liable for the acts of their subordinates.”). If state prison officials are named, they must be named in their individual capacities, and Plaintiff must allege that the official personally participated in the
deprivation or was deliberately reckless as to the misconduct of subordinates or was aware and condoned, acquiesced, or turned a blind eye to it. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724,
740 (7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and § 1915A. The Court will allow Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a
timely Second Amended Complaint, or if the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief, his case will be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint will replace Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its entirety. The Second Amended Complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. V. Motion to Request Counsel Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Counsel asking the
Court to appoint counsel to represent him. (Doc. 13). “There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation.” Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014). When
evaluating a Motion to Request Counsel, the Court must consider: “(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from
doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 2007). Demonstrating a
reasonable effort to obtain representation typically requires submitting letters from several attorneys declining assistance and copies of any documents which show Plaintiff tried to find
an attorney. See Olson, 750 F.3d at 711. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable attempt to secure his own lawyer. Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong of Pruitt, the Court does not address the second.
Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED, with leave to renew. If Plaintiff renews his Motion, he is directed to attach copies of letters he sent to or received from prospective counsel, list the attorneys
or law firms he contacted, and indicate whether he received a response. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and § 1915A. The Court will allow Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely Second Amended Complaint, or if the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief, his case will be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint will replace Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety. The Second Amended Complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted.
2) The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank section 1983 complaint form.
3) Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel [13] is DENIED, with leave to renew.
ENTERED July 16, 2026.
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE