Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/574-f-3d-443-597122426
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:31:03+00:00

Document:
Opinion Judge: POSNER, Circuit Judge.
Party Name: Lester DOBBEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Attorney: Arthur J. Rooney, Attorney (argued), Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Lester Dobbey, Joliet, IL, pro se.
Judge Panel: Before BAUER, POSNER, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Arthur J. Rooney, Attorney (argued), Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Lester Dobbey, Joliet, IL, pro se.
The district judge dismissed this prisoner's civil rights suit (42 U.S.C. § 1983), which names the Illinois Department of Corrections, along with prison personnel, as defendants. He dismissed the suit before service of process, on the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which so far as bears on this case directs dismissal then if the complaint fails to state a claim or if it seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. § § 1915A(b)(1), (2). The Illinois Department of Corrections was properly dismissed on the authority of Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Whether the complaint fails to state a claim against the individual defendants, as the judge also believed, is a more difficult question.
other), chanced on the scene and saw the noose. The noose was taken down by another guard 20 minutes after it had been put up.
The plaintiff filed a grievance complaining of the guard's conduct. Two days later he was interviewed by an internal affairs officer who said to him: " What did [the officer who had hung the noose] tell you, he was going to hang you or something?.... Well, he won't have to worry about hanging nobody, because he just hung himself."
17 Mo.App. 629 (Mo.App. 1885), Clay v. Chicago & A. R. Co.

References: v. 
 § 1983
 § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 v.