Dabbs v. Peoria County Illinois et al
Filing
5
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 12/20/2016. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 3 ) is DENIED. Plainti ff's duplicative motion (Doc. 2 ) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his right to a speedy trial. Because this claim could not be cured of its defects, it is DISMISSED WITH P REJUDICE. For all other claims, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff could cure these defects, these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff will have twenty-one (21) days to file an Amended Complaint that relates to these claims and that complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If he fails to do so, the case will be dismissed in its entirety. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (JS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 21 December, 2016 09:28:10 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
GREGORY DABBS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PEORIA COUNTY ILLINOIS, SCOTT
)
SORRELL, Peoria County Administrator, )
individually and official capacity &
)
MICHAEL A BROOKS, individually and )
official capacity
)
Case No. 1:16-cv-01463-JBM-JEH
Defendants.
ORDER & OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Gregory Dabb’s Complaint (Doc. 1),
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4), and Motion to Request
Counsel (Doc. 3). Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint must be screened
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted, Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed. Lastly, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Request Counsel is denied because Plaintiff has not attempted to find his
own representation without court assistance.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint arises from a denial of state veterans benefits. Plaintiff
alleges that under state law, veterans are entitled to assistance for rent and
utilities. (Doc. 1 at 6). In October of 2015, Plaintiff alleges he gave the Peoria
County Veterans Assistance Office an Ameren1 bill for payment, which was about
$84. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brooks denied the bill, which resulted in
Plaintiff being without power for about five weeks. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Brooks lied in his letter explaining the denial of the bill. Id. In
December, Plaintiff then alleges that he met with Defendant Sorrell, Defendant
Brook’s supervisor, and showed him the paperwork. Id. Plaintiff alleges that a day
and a half after the meeting, Plaintiff was arrested by Peoria County Police for
disorderly conduct. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the case was maintained until August
6, 2016, when it was dropped. Id.
On November 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed this suit against the County of Peoria;
Scott Sorrell, the Peoria County Administrator; and Michael Brooks, an employee of
the Peoria County Veterans Assistance Commission. Id. at 2-3. Although Plaintiff
brings several claims; he does not identify which claims he seeks to bring against
which defendants. Based on the facts given, the Court infers that Plaintiff seeks to
bring the following claims. First, Plaintiff seeks to bring a § 1983 claim against all
defendants for the denial of his state veterans benefits. Id. Second, Plaintiff seeks to
bring a § 1983 claim against Defendant Sorrell for unlawful arrest. Id. Third,
Plaintiff seeks to bring a claim against Defendant Peoria County for a violation of
Plaintiff’s right to a speedy trial. Id.
I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. A court
may allow a civil suit to proceed without the prepayment of fees when a plaintiff
1
Ameren is an energy company that provides utilities in Illinois.
2
submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all their assets, and shows that
they are unable to pay filing fees or provide security for the payment of a filing fee.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The affidavit must “state the nature of the action . . . and
affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” Id. However, the “privilege to
proceed without [paying] costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished
litigants who, within a district court’s discretion, would remain without legal
remedy if such privileges were not afforded to them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van
Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972).
In support of his Motion, Plaintiff states under penalty of perjury that his
housing and utilities are provided for by the United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, but that aside from that he has no income. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff also states that
he has no current expenses, but that during the time in question he was responsible
for utilities. Id. Based on Plaintiff’s submission, the Court concludes that he is
entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
II. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 SCREENING
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must screen complaints proceeding in
forma pauperis. The court must then dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because Plaintiff
alleges several different claims, the claims will be screened separately. All of
Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
3
When evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has stated a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B) de novo, courts use the same standards as that which apply to Rule
12(b)(6) dismissals. Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1027 (7th Cir.
2013). Therefore, the court will take “all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as
true and view[] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. (citing Arnett v.
Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff need only give “‘fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” EEOC v. Concentra Health
Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 733, 776-77 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Furthermore, a pro se complaint is to be construed liberally
and held to “less stringent standards than a formal pleadings by lawyers.” Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
III.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
denying him state veterans benefits, unlawfully arresting him, and violating his right
to a speedy trial. Section 1983 states that:
“[E]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
. . . .”
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, in order to state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege a
“violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the United States, and
must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color
of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The Court will determine whether
Plaintiff has stated a § 1983 claim for denial of his state veterans benefits, unlawful
4
arrest, and right to a speedy trial individually. Additionally, the Court will address
whether Plaintiff has stated any other claim upon which relief could be granted.
A. ALLEGATION
BENEFITS
OF
§ 1983 VIOLATION
FROM
DENIAL
OF
STATE VETERANS
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any defendant for the denial of state
veterans benefits upon which relief can be granted. In order to state a § 1983 claim,
a plaintiff must allege a “violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of
the United States.” West, 487 U.S. at 48; see also Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137,
140 (1979) (“The first inquiry in any § 1983 suit, therefore, is whether the plaintiff
has been deprived of a right ‘secured by the Constitution and [federal] laws’”). Section
1983 does not create a substantive right; “it merely provides remedies for
deprivations of rights” established in the Constitution or another federal statute.
Okla. City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
refused to pay a bill that he was entitled to “under state law.” (Doc. 1 at 6). However,
a state benefit is not a federal right. Because Plaintiff complains only of a violation of
state veterans benefits and not a federal right, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.
B. ALLEGATION OF § 1983 VIOLATION BY UNLAWFUL ARREST
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for false arrest under § 1983. In order to
prevail on a false arrest claim, a plaintiff must show that that there was no probable
cause for his arrest. Neita v. City of Chicago, 830 F.3d 494, 497 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing
Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 246 (7th Cir. 2012). Therefore, in order to state
a claim, plaintiff must adequately plead that there was a lack of probable cause for
his arrest. Id. Plaintiff fails to allege that there was no probable cause for his arrest.
5
Rather Plaintiff only asserts that Defendant Sorrell “lied to police and had the
Plaintiff arrested.” (Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiff then asserts that the case was dropped
because the state had violated Plaintiff’s right to a speedy trial. Id. at 4. Therefore,
there are no facts plead to indicate that police did not have probable cause when
arresting Plaintiff.
Additionally, Plaintiff appears to only allege the unlawful arrest accusation
against Defendant Sorrell; however, in order to state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff
must allege facts that Defendant Sorrell was acting under the “color of state law”
when he allegedly caused Plaintiff to be unlawfully arrested. “‘Not every action by a
state official or employee is to be deemed as occurring ‘under color’ of state law.’”
Wilson v. Price, 624 F.3d 389, 392 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pickrel v. City of
Springfield, Ill., 45 F.3d 1115, 1118 (7th Cir. 1989)). Furthermore, the “mere
assertion that one is a state officer does not necessarily mean that one acts under
color of state law.” Id. (citing Askew v. Bloemker, 548 F.2d 673, 677 (7th Cir. 1976)).
“A state officer’s conduct does not constitute acting under color of state law unless it
is ‘related in some way to the performance of the duties of the state office.’” Id.
(quoting Honaker v. Smith, 256 F.3d 477, 484-85 (7th Cir. 2001)). Plaintiff has not
alleged that Defendant Sorrell, who is a Peoria County Official, was acting under
color of state law. Rather, Plaintiff only alleges that he talked to Defendant Sorrell
about Defendant Brook’s mishandling of veterans funds and that a day and a half
after their conversation, Plaintiff was arrested. (Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiff does allege that
Defendant Sorrell lied to police. Id. However, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant
6
Sorrell was acting under the color of state law during his actions. Therefore, Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim for unlawful arrest under § 1983 against Defendant Sorrell.
C. ALLEGATION OF § 1983 VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
Plaintiff has failed to state a speedy trial claim upon which relief can be
granted. The sole remedy for a violation of the speedy trial right is a dismissal of the
charges. Betterman v. Montana, 136 S. Ct. 1609, 1615 (2016); see also Strunk v.
United States, 412 U.S. 434, 440 (1973); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 522 (1972).
Plaintiff admitted that the criminal proceedings were terminated in a manner that
indicated that the Plaintiff was innocent on August 6th, 2016. (Doc. 1 at 5). Therefore,
there is no relief that the Court can provide and Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.
D. OTHER ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff also makes several other statements, which may be attempts to bring
forth other claims against the defendants. However, these statements are conclusory
statements and Plaintiff has pled no facts to support them; therefore, he fails to state
a claim. A pleading that simply offers “labels and conclusions,” a “formulaic recitation
of the elements,” or “naked assertions devoid of factual enhancement” are insufficient.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). These statements include Plaintiff’s
conclusory statement that “Peoria County has unlawfully institutionalized practices
and policies that violate Federal law”2 for which he pleads no facts. (Doc. 1 at 2).
In Plaintiff’s list of Exhibits (which he attached to his Complaint), he alleges that
“[the] ER head nurse told Plaintiff that the Sheriff’s Office routinely [tries to have
people involuntarily committed] to intimidate people they don’t like.” However, the
Sheriff’s office has a separate legal existence from the county. DeGenova v. Sheriff of
DuPage Cty., 209 F.3d 973, 976 n.2 (7th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has
2
7
Additionally, it includes the two boxes that Plaintiff checked on page 5 of his
Complaint, but failed to plead any facts to support: “[Defendant] failed to intervene
to protect plaintiff from a violation of his/her civil rights by one or more other
defendants” and “[Defendants] conspired together to violate one or more plaintiff’s
rights.” Id. at 5. Because Plaintiff has failed to offer facts to support these claims,
these claims are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be given.
IV.
MOTION FOR COUNSEL
Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel is denied because he has failed to show that he
has attempted to acquire counsel on his own. A civil litigant is not entitled to a courtappointed attorney. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006).
However, the court may request an attorney to represent an indigent litigant. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The decision whether to appoint counsel is generally left to the
discretion of the Court. Wilson v. Duckworth, 716 F.2d 415, 418 (7th Cir. 1983).
However, the Court has several considerations before it will appoint counsel.
First, the plaintiff must show that he made a reasonable attempt to acquire
counsel without Court intervention. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff has failed to show that he made a reasonable attempt to acquire
representation on his own. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Counsel, which asks him
to “attach documentation showing that you have asked several attorneys to represent
you in this case.” (Doc. 3). Plaintiff has failed to file any documentation to show that
named Peoria County as a defendant, not Peoria County Sheriff’s Department.
Therefore, although Plaintiff has alleged a policy of the Sheriff’s Department,
Plaintiff has not alleged an institutionalized practice or policy of Peoria County.
8
he sought representation from attorneys. Therefore, Plaintiff has not made a
reasonable attempt to acquire counsel and his motion is dismissed.
If the plaintiff had made the proper attempt, then the court would consider
whether, “given the difficulty of the case,” he appears able to litigate it himself, and
if not, whether appointed counsel would be “reasonably likely to alter the outcome.”
Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655-56, 660. Because Plaintiff has not made a reasonable request,
the Court will not consider these factors. Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 3) is
DENIED. Plaintiff’s duplicative motion (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his
right to a speedy trial. Because this claim could not be cured of its defects, it is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
For all other claims, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff could cure these defects, these claims
are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff will have twenty-one (21) days
to file an Amended Complaint that relates to these claims and that complies with
Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If he fails to do so, the case
will be dismissed in its entirety.
Entered this _20th_ day of December, 2016.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
9
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?