Stone v. Hammers et al

Filing 8

MERIT REVIEW ORDER Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 7/17/2017. 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. Any amendment to the Complaint would be futile. This case is therefore terminated. All pending motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his case has been dismi ssed. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court w ithin 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 $455 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.(ED, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 17 July, 2017 11:28:26 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL STONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUSTIN HAMMERS, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17-1267

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This case is before the court for a merit review of the plaintiff's claims. The court
is required by 28 U.S.C. '1915A to Ascreen@ the plaintiff=s complaint, 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.@ 28 U.S.C. '1915A.
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in the plaintiff=s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649
(7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough
facts must be provided to Astate a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.@ Alexander
v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the
complaint and has also held a merit review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a
chance to personally explain his claims to the Court.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Illinois River Correctional Center. He alleges
that his typewriter was damaged and his brand new pair of shoes was stolen during
transport. Plaintiff alleges he was eventually reimbursed for the lost shoes. Plaintiff
also alleges that prison officials retaliated against him, but he previously filed a separate
lawsuit that is proceeding on those claims.
Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that the property deprivations he suffered were a
result of intentional, but unauthorized, acts of prison employees. In other words, the
confiscation of Plaintiff’s non-contraband property was not mandated by an established
prison policy—prison officials acted on their own volition. In this scenario, the
confiscation or destruction of personal property does not violate due process where
state law provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
517, 530 (1984). Plaintiff has an adequate remedy available to him in the Illinois Court

of Claims to the extent that he was not fully reimbursed for his shoes and typewriter.
See Stewart v. McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031, 1036 (7th Cir. 1993). Therefore, he does not state a
constitutional claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
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. Any amendment to the
Complaint would be futile. This case is therefore terminated. All pending
motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
2) Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his case
has been dismissed. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall continue
to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's
prior order.
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 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 $455 appellate
filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.
Entered this 17th day of July, 2017.
/s/ Harold A. Baker
_________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE