Wesley v. Williams

Filing 10

MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 12/23/2015: IT IS ORDERED:1)Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted (5).2)This case is dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.3)The clerk is directed to enter the standar d order directing payment of the filing fee in installments from Plaintiff's trust fund account. 4)If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. A pp. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER) (JRK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 23 December, 2015 03:58:12 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT WESLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN WILLIAMS,
et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15-CV-1442

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Menard
Correctional Center. He alleges that Peoria Officer Williams caused
Plaintiff’s unlawful detention at the jail from June 9, 2012, to June
26, 2012, when the charges against Plaintiff were dropped for lack
of probable cause.
Officer Williams moves to dismiss on the grounds that
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
Plaintiff counters that the motion is procedurally improper because
the motion cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)(failure to state a claim).
Plaintiff does not address the merits of Defendant’s argument that
Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
Page 1 of 3 

Officer Williams’ motion is procedurally proper because the
motion relies solely on the allegations in the Complaint. O’Pere v.
Citimortgage Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 6859289 *2 (N.D. Ill. 2015)( “A
statute of limitations argument might more typically be raised in a
motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) [rather than
12(b)(6),] but ‘the practical effect is the same.’”)(quoted cite
omitted)(bracketed material added).
It is plain from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint that this action
is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Bryant v. City of
Chicago, 746 F.3d 239, 241 (7th Cir. 2014)(In Illinois, section 1983
actions are subject to the two-year statute of limitations in 735
ILCS 5/13-202); Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009 (7th
Cir. 2002)(“[W]hen the existence of a valid affirmative defense is so
plain from the face of the complaint that the suit can be regarded as
frivolous, the district judge need not wait for an answer before
dismissing the suit.”). Plaintiff’s claims based on his alleged illegal
detention would have accrued, at the latest, on June 26, 2012,
when the charges were dropped and he was released. Plaintiff filed
this case more than three years later, clearly too late. Accordingly,
the motion to dismiss will be granted.
Page 2 of 3 

IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted (5).
2) This case is dismissed as barred by the statute of
limitations.
3) The clerk is directed to enter the standard order
directing payment of the filing fee in installments
from Plaintiff’s trust fund account.
4) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a
notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the
entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the
issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he
will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective
of the outcome of the appeal.
ENTERED: 12/23/2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/James E. Shadid
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3