DeLeon v. Madigan
Filing
6
MERIT REVIEW OPINION Entered by Judge Sara Darrow on 5/8/2017. See written Order. Plaintiffs complaints are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The cases are closed.(ED, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 08 May, 2017 02:19:12 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER L. PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA MADIGAN,
Defendant.
TIMOTHY NELOMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA MADIGAN,
Defendant.
RICHARD DELEON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA MADIGAN,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17-CV-1115
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17-CV-1118
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17-CV-1119
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
These cases are before the Court for a merit review of the plaintiffs’ claims. The
Court is required by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A to Ascreen@ the plaintiffs’ complaints, and
through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire
action if warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it A(1) is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief.@
In these three cases, the plaintiffs, purporting to proceed pro se under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, have sought review of orders of the Illinois Parole Board denying them release on
Page 1 of 2
parole or supervised release. They claim that the Board denied parole or release
because they are unable to afford or find a suitable place to live during their term of
parole or mandatory supervised release.
The court lacks jurisdiction to proceed in these cases and, accordingly, they will
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Illinois Supreme Court case of Hanrahan v.
Williams, 174 Ill. 2d 268, 673 N.E.2d 251 (1996) illustrates the procedure under Illinois
law for the judicial review of a ruling of the Illinois Parole Board. Under the rationale
of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994), it is necessary to exhaust all state remedies before the federal
courts can exercise jurisdiction. These plaintiffs have failed to exhaust those remedies.
Accordingly, their cases are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ complaints are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The cases are
closed.
2. Each plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his
case has been dismissed. The agency having custody of the individual plaintiff shall
continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's
prior order.
3. If the individual Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may 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 the individual
plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the individual
plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee
irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.
Entered this 8th day of May, 2017.
/s/ Harold A. Baker
____________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
United States District Court
Page 2 of 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?