Potter v. Clark, 73-2135.

• Citation: 497 F.2d 1206
• Decision Date: 16 May 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73-2135.,73-2135.
• Parties: Larry G. POTTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. CLARK, Sheriff of the County of Vermilion, State of Illinois, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

497 F.2d 1206 (1974)

Larry G. POTTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. CLARK, Sheriff of the County of Vermilion, State of Illinois, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 73-2135.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 16, 1974.

Larry G. Potter, pro se.

Richard J. Doyle, State's Atty., John R. McClory, First Asst. State's Atty., Danville, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, and CUMMINGS and SPRECHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Larry G. Potter filed a complaint against John W. Clark, Sheriff of Vermilion County, Illinois for money damages, invoking jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is predicated upon the alleged deprivation of rights resulting from the following: excessive bail pending trial; cruel and unusual punishment while in custody in lieu of bail; denial of procedural due process prior to being placed in isolation. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff has appealed and we affirm after having considered the record, briefs and cases cited therein pursuant to F.R.App.P. 2.

The basic issue raised by plaintiff for our consideration is whether the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state an actionable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Our review of the record convinces us that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint.

Conspicuous by its absence from the complaint is any allegation of any act on the part of defendant toward the plaintiff. The only place where defendant was named was in the caption of the complaint. Moreover, no other person was named in the complaint. Where a complaint alleges no specific act or conduct on the part of the defendant and the complaint is silent as to the defendant except for his name appearing in the caption, the complaint is properly dismissed, even under the liberal construction to be given pro se complaints. Brzozowski v. Randall, 281 F.Supp. 306, 312 (E.D.Pa.1968).

Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff's allegations were properly addressed to defendant by virtue of his actions, we nevertheless find that the complaint was properly dismissed for failure to raise issues cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff's allegation regarding excessive bail was properly dismissed. Plaintiff cannot be heard to bring an action against defendant for excessive bail since defendant was not the one who had responsibility to set the bail. The bail was set by a state court judge and defendant, as County Sheriff, was merely following an order of the court.

Defendant's...