Kleiss v. John Doe
Filing
4
ORDER and OPINION Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 6/8/2011. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may submit an Amended Complaint in which he properly names any/all parties whom he seeks to enjoin in his cause o f action.2 The Court DEFERS ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), until such time as Plaintiff files his Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Amended Pleadings due by 6/23/2011.) (cc: Plaintiff with blank complaint form). (KB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 09 June, 2011 08:51:16 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
JERRY KLEISS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 11-1215
ORDER & OPINION
On June 6, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint with this
Court seeking an order staying the ongoing state court criminal proceedings against
him. (Doc. 1). While it appears that Plaintiff’s claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
based upon his allegations that the state laws under which he is being prosecuted
violate his due process and equal protection rights,1 it is unclear to the Court who
Plaintiff seeks to name as a defendant in this matter. (Doc. 1 at 4). Rule 8(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a Complaint must contain a “short
and plain statement of [Plaintiff’s] claim, showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to
relief.”
Such pleading is required in order to allow for the Court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Plaintiff also fails to allege what law he is being prosecuted under. Because he
alleges that he has been charged with “3 counts of child pornography” the Court
presumes he is being charged under 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1, however this is neither
clear nor controlling upon the instant disposition of the matter.
1
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1940 (2009). Where the Plaintiff has named no
defendant in his Complaint, the Court is unable to make such a determination.
Moreover, Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules provides that “[t]he title of the
complaint must name all the parties . . .”
While pro se Complaints are to be
construed liberally, where Plaintiff has named no party as a Defendant, the Court
cannot determine whether any party is properly liable to Plaintiff pursuant to his
cause of action. Nor can the Court determine who Plaintiff is seeking to enjoin. In
addition, the Court cannot provide proper notice to any party that an injunction is
being sought against it, and no person will be able to potentially defend the suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff may submit an Amended Complaint in which he properly names any/all
parties whom he seeks to enjoin in his cause of action.2 The Court DEFERS ruling
on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), until such time as
Plaintiff files his Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Entered this 8th day of June, 2011.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
Allowing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint does not in any way suggest or
indicate that Plaintiff’s purported claim has merit.
2
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?