Wilson v. Hoos et al
Filing
5
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 1/5/2018. Plaintiff Wade William Wilson's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 and Motion to Request Counsel 4 are DENIED as moot. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. Plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days from the entry of this Opinion and Order to submit an amended complaint. SO ORDERED. See full written Order.(VH, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 05 January, 2018 11:11:43 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
WADE WILLIAM WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, JODI HOOS,
KEVIN LYONS, JILL DAVID, KEVIN
LOWE, and ROBERT M. SPEARS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 17-cv-1572
Honorable Joe B. McDade
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Wade William Wilson’s Motion
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) and Motion to Request Counsel
(Doc. 4). For the reasons given below, both motions are DENIED, the Complaint is
dismissed.
BACKGROUND
In 2013, Wilson was charged with several counts of attempted burglary in
violation of 720 ILCS 5/19-1(a). He pled guilty and was sentenced to concurrent
terms of two years on of three counts of attempted burglary. (Doc. 1 at 9). He
contends that he was wrongfully forced to serve consecutive sentences based on
court employee, Jill David’s, mistake in marking consecutive instead of concurrent
(see Doc. 1 at 10) on the order committing him to the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections. This error caused Wilson to serve a longer sentence
1
than he should have served. Wilson completed the improperly extended sentence
and was released on July 22, 2016.
Wilson is currently in county jail on matters unrelated to this action. He now
seeks to proceed in forma pauperis with a civil rights action by way of 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against the State of Illinois; the Peoria County state judge who presided over
his 2013 case, Kevin Lyons; the then prosecutor, Jodi Hoos (now a state judge); his
trial counsel, Kevin Lowe; the Clerk of Court, Robert Spears; and the court
employee who he alleges incorrectly marked his sentencing order, Jill David. He
alleges all of these parties were deliberately indifferent to his wrongfully prolonged
prison sentence.
He has not alleged that any of the individual Defendants even knew about
the mistaken order. Nor has he alleged that he attempted to take any measures to
correct his sentence while he was incarcerated. Nevertheless, he seeks to force these
state actors to resign their positions and to compensate him for pain and suffering
to the tune of 1.2 million dollars.
LEGAL STANDARDS
“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 privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster
v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a), an indigent jailed litigant may pursue a federal civil action by filing an
affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses, and affirms
2
that the prisoner is unable to pay court fees or provide security therefor. Wilson has
done that. Section (e) of that same statute requires the court to dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue; or the
action 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.
Another statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, also requires the Court to review each and
every complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity as soon as
practicable to identify any cognizable (which means legally comprehensible and
within the power of the Court to address) claims and to dismiss the complaint, or
any portion of the complaint, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Thus, the Court has a responsibility to
analyze the Complaint as soon as practicable to determine whether the case should
continue.
In reviewing a complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in the plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645,
649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). 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. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). As in any other case, a plaintiff can plead
himself out of court by providing enough facts to demonstrate that he has no claim
3
for which relief nay be granted. Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th
Cir. 2011). This includes not only the facts alleged within the complaint, but also
facts that come from documents that were incorporated into the pleadings. In re
Wade, 969 F.2d 241, 249 (7th Cir. 1992). Although the court must take all well-pled
allegations as true, when an exhibit incontrovertibly contradicts the allegations in
the complaint, then the exhibit generally controls, even when the court is
considering a motion to dismiss. Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 609 (7th Cir.
2013). Additionally, the court may independently examine and form its own
opinions about a document because it is not bound by a party’s characterization of
it. Forrest v. Universal Sav. Bank, F.A., 507 F.3d 540, 542 (7th Cir. 2007).
DISCUSSION
Wilson’s Complaint must be dismissed for two primary reasons. First, this
Court does not have the power to force state officials and employees, some of whom
were elected by the people of Peoria County, to resign their positions. Second, the
allegations of the Complaint, even taken as true, do not set out with any degree of
plausibility that any of the individual Defendants even knew of the error in Wilson’s
paperwork or that he was languishing behind bars for longer than he should have.
“Incarceration beyond the date when a person is entitled to be released
violates the Eighth Amendment if it is the product of deliberate indifference.” Figgs
v. Dawson, 829 F.3d 895, 902 (7th Cir. 2016). But it is axiomatic that for an action
to be done deliberately, the actor had to have knowledge of the action. Wilson states
some court employee named Jill David marked the wrong boxes on his sentencing
4
order. There is nothing pled in the Complaint from which one can draw the
conclusion that anyone even knew of the mistake, let alone deliberately ignored it.
It does not even appear Wilson himself noticed the error during his term of
incarceration as the Complaint is silent as to what steps, if any, Wilson took to try
to alert officials about the error.
For these reasons, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to state claims
upon which relief may be granted on its face and must be dismissed. The ancillary
motions are moot. In keeping with Seventh Circuit longstanding precedent of
allowing pro se litigants to amend a pleading at least once, the Court will allow
Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint within twenty-one days of the entry of this
Opinion and Order. If Plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint by then, this
civil action will be terminated.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Wade William Wilson’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. 2) and Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 4) are DENIED as moot. The
Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. Plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days from the
entry of this Opinion and Order to submit an amended complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 5th day of January, 2018.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
5
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?