Porter v. East St. Louis Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANNETTE PORTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
EAST ST. LOUIS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-02185-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Annette Porter’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis (Doc. 12). On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed her initial complaint against
the East St. Louis Police Department and Sam (Unknown) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed it without
prejudice for failure to state a claim. It explained that neither defendant could be sued under §
1983. Plaintiff was given up to and including February 4, 2026, to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 27, 2026. Her amended complaint again
sought to bring claims against the East St. Louis Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Court screened the amended complaint and dismissed it without prejudice. It explained that the
police department is not a suable entity under § 1983, and informed Plaintiff that she must sue
either the individual officers involved or the municipality itself. The Court gave Plaintiff up to
and including March 12, 2026, to file a second amended complaint. It warned her that this would
be her final opportunity to amend her complaint to state a claim under § 1983.
On February 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed her second amended complaint. She again tries to
sue the East St. Louis Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has told Plaintiff
two times that she cannot sue a police department under § 1983. In addition, it has explained to
Case 3:25-cv-02185-JPG Document 15 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
her who she can sue. The fact that she still fails to state a cognizable claim under § 1983
indicates to the Court that she simply is unable to do so. As such, the Court DENIES the Motion
for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 12), DENIES the Motion to Appoint Counsel
(Doc. 4), and DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) without prejudice. It
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	February 27, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02185-JPG Document 15 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>