Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01743/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01743-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 31, 2016*

Decided November 14, 2016

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16-1743

EMPEROR ELDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THOMAS J. DART, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 14 C 6495

Thomas M. Durkin,

Judge.

O R D E R

Emperor Elder was arrested for failure to pay court-ordered child support and 

spent five days in the Cook County Jail where, he alleges, jail officials violated his 

constitutional rights by refusing to call him “Emperor,” failing to provide him a copy of 

the Kybalion (a spiritual text), and denying him medical care. Elder brought this suit 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart, the Cook County 

Sheriff’s Office, and unnamed jail personnel. He received hundreds of pages of 

 

* We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because 

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral 

argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-1743 Document: 24 Filed: 11/14/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16-1743 Page 2

documents in response to discovery requests, but failed to identify any defendant who 

was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. The district court 

granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that Elder produced no 

evidence that Sheriff Dart was personally involved in the conduct of which he

complained, and that he could not proceed to trial against unnamed (and thus unserved) 

defendants. And, the court continued, Elder’s claim against the Sheriff’s Office failed 

because he did not establish the existence of an unconstitutional policy or practice, as 

required by Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 

We affirm the judgment of the district court. Sheriff Dart cannot be held liable for 

the actions of his subordinates, given that he lacked personal involvement in any of the 

harm Elder alleged. See Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 776 (7th Cir. 2008). Similarly, 

Elder’s purported Monell claim against the Sheriff’s Office fails because he submitted no 

evidence (nor did he articulate a plausible theory) to support his contention that an 

official custom or policy led to the deprivation of his rights. See Dixon v. Cnty. of Cook, 819 

F.3d 343, 348 (7th Cir. 2016). And Elder’s failure to identify and serve any defendant 

personally responsible for the conduct he challenges—despite having told the district 

court that all the discovery he sought had been provided—dooms his suit. See Williams v. 

Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 402 (7th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-1743 Document: 24 Filed: 11/14/2016 Pages: 2