Payne v. Pritzker

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KRAIG PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
J.B. PRITZKER,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-1011-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Kraig Payne, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is
currently 	incarcerated 	at 	Lawrence 	Correctional 	Center, 	brings 	this 	action 	for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Payne’s original
complaint (Doc. 1), alleging that Governor J.B. Pritzker failed to protect him, was
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim (Doc. 12). He was granted leave
to file an amended pleading. In his Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), Payne alleges that
Governor Pritzker was personally responsible for various constitutional violations that
Payne experienced at Lawrence.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to
screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
Case 3:25-cv-01011-NJR Document 15 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law
is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Amended Complaint
Payne’s Amended Complaint once again alleges that Governor Pritzker was
personally responsible for the violations he experienced at Lawrence. He alleges that
Governor Pritzker learned of violations of his rights but failed to take any action to
remedy the situation (Doc. 13, p. 4). Governor Pritzker allegedly failed to properly train
or supervise his subordinates (Id.). He alleges that the governor’s employees failed to
keep him safe (Id.). Payne alleges that he filed a claim regarding his serious pain or
offenses, but Governor Pritzker failed to respond, and his injuries got worse (Id. at p. 5).
Payne alleges that the nature of his complaint at Lawrence includes a wide variety
of events including food, conditions, sexual abuse, and mishandling of his mail (Doc. 13,
p. 5). Payne alleges that his letter and complaint should have reached the governor’s desk
by now (Id.). But Payne also alleges that Governor Pritzker wrote to him and said that he
was going to help Payne (Id.). Payne believes that he has also faced staff retaliation (Id.).
Payne also alleges that he has several exhibits that will support his claim, including
copies of the personal letter and other complaints he sent to Governor Pritzker, the
governor’s acknowledgment, and a second letter (Id. at p. 6). None of these documents
are attached to his Amended Complaint.
Discussion
As the Court previously informed Payne, a successful complaint generally alleges
“the who, what, when, where, and how…” See DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627
Case 3:25-cv-01011-NJR Document 15 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
(7th Cir. 1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to set forth “a
short and plain statement of [Plaintiff’s claim(s)] showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” F ED. R. C IV. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d) requires “simple, concise, and direct” allegations.
F ED. R. C IV. P. 8(d)(1). The purpose of these rules is to “give defendants fair notice of the
claims against them and the grounds supporting the claims.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d
792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007).
Payne once again fails to state a viable claim. His Amended Complaint, though
plain and mostly legible, is difficult to decipher. 1 He alleges that Governor Pritzker is
personally involved in the constitutional violations that he experienced at Lawrence, but
Payne fails to identify those violations. Instead, he merely alleges that he experienced
“a wide spread of events” and notes that his experiences included “food conditions
sexual abuse [and] importantly, mail handling” (Doc. 13, p. 5). He fails to allege pertinent
facts about his experiences, including when these events occurred, whom he spoke to about
these conditions, and when he submitted his letter to the governor’s office. Payne alleges
that the governor submitted a response to one of his filings, but he fails to allege the
complaints addressed in those letters to the governor or the statements made by the
governor in the response. Payne not only fails to allege that Governor Pritzker was aware
1 Some of his allegations, although legible, lack clear meaning, and other passages are
indecipherable. For instance, Payne alleges that “The harm suffered is staff retaliation which has
grown on his behalf, every report should be taking serious by not if [indecipherable] deliberate
indifference to my health and safety.” (Doc 13, p. 5). He fails to explain neither the retaliation he
suffered nor the deliberate indifference he experienced.
Case 3:25-cv-01011-NJR Document 15 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
of the constitutional violations that Payne experienced at the prison, but he also fails to
even identify the specific conditions and constitutional violations he experienced at
Lawrence.
Payne 	also 	alleges 	that 	Governor 	Pritzker 	created 	policies 	allowing 	and
encouraging illegal actions (Doc. 13, p. 4), but he fails to identify those policies and
customs that led to the alleged illegal conduct. Payne alleges that the governor failed to
train or supervisor his employees, but he fails to even indicate how the failure to train
staff led to a constitutional violation. 2 Thus, Payne once again fails to state a claim.
This is Payne’s second attempt at filing a viable claim, and he has been unable to
do so. The Court finds that further amendment would be futile.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Payne’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. The dismissal counts as one of Payne’s three allotted
“strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Payne is ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was
incurred at the time the action was filed. Therefore, the filing fee remains due and
payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
2 Failure to train claims are usually against municipalities, not individuals. Although Payne
indicates that he is proceeding under Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), such
claims do not apply to states or its agencies and departments. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d
724, 739–40 (7th Cir. 2001); Joseph v. Board of Regents, 432 F.3d 746, 748-49 (7th Cir. 2005) (“The
[Supreme] Court has been clear, however, that Monell’s holding applies only to municipalities
and not states or states’ departments.”)
Case 3:25-cv-01011-NJR Document 15 Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
If Payne wishes to appeal this Order, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court
within 30 days of the entry of judgment. F ED. R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1)(A). If Payne does choose
to appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome
of the appeal. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d
724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien, 133
F.3d at 467. He must list each of the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal,
and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must set forth the issues he plans to
present on appeal. See F ED. R. APP . P. 24(a)(1)(C). Moreover, if the appeal is found to be
nonmeritorious, Payne may also incur another “strike.” A proper and timely motion filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline.
F ED. R. APP . P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than 28 days after the
entry of judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 4, 2025
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01011-NJR Document 15 Filed 11/04/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>