Chambers v. Raines et al
Filing
5
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 06/29/2016. SEE WRITTEN MERIT REVIEW OPINION. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This case is therefore closed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. The pending motion for a temporary restraining order is denied 3 . (DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 29 June, 2016 10:14:03 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JONATHAN CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WENDY RAINES, et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16-CV-1232
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in the Illinois
River Correctional Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the pro se
Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing
the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729
F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2103). However, conclusory statements and
labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to "'state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721
F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
Page 1 of 4
ALLEGATIONS
The Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were violated by
Pontiac Correctional Center Officer Wendy Raines, Parole Officer
Mark Brady, and Parole Supervisor Jeff Hart. Plaintiff says he was
on parole for Domestic Battery, Intimidation, Aggravated Battery,
and Possession of a Controlled Substance. On April 25, 2016, he
was arrested on a warrant for a potential parole violation. Plaintiff
was subsequently found guilty of the violation, and he has now
returned to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).
Plaintiff says the parole revocation report was based on lies
and false statements provided by the three Defendants. Therefore,
Plaintiff says Defendants have committed the offense of perjury and
have violated his Eighth Amendment, First Amendment, and Due
Process rights. He is requesting damages.
Plaintiff has provided a copy of the Parole Violation Report
which alleges Plaintiff twice approached a Pontiac Correctional
Center employee while she was out in the community with her
children. The officer claims Plaintiff made statements such as “I
told you I would find you.” (Comp., p. 9). The reporting officer
claims Plaintiff was previously warned not to have contact with
Page 2 of 4
IDOC employees after his release from custody due to a previous
incident. The officer also reported Plaintiff had tested positive for
marijuana while on parole.
ANALYSIS
The Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the Supreme Court’s decision
in Heck v Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) which prevents a
plaintiff from proceeding with a §1983 lawsuit where “a judgment in
favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction or sentence” unless the plaintiff can show that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S.
at 487. “Heck applies to both a prisoner’s original sentence and to
reimprisonment upon revocation of parole.” See Easterling v
Siarnicki, 2011 WL 1740032 at 2 (7th Cir. May 4, 2011); see also
Wilkinson v Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). A decision in
Plaintiff’s favor in this case would clearly call his revocation into
question since he claims the decision was based on false
statements. Therefore, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Page 3 of 4
1)
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
This case is therefore closed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. The pending
motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.[3]
2)
This dismissal shall count as one of the Plaintiff's three
allotted “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The Clerk
is directed to record Plaintiff’s strike in the three-strikes log.
3)
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 MUST 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: June 29, 2016
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 4
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?