Chambers v. Benning et al
Filing
9
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 10/9/2014. The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). See written order. (JMW, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 09 October, 2014 04:31:53 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JONATHAN CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZACK BENNING, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-CV-2204
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
The 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 “screen” 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 “(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 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). 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.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in the Western Illinois
Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff filed
this suit alleging a violation of his constitutional rights because officers from the
Livingston County Sheriff’s Department arrested him on a parole violation without a
warrant, and they disrespected him in front of his girlfriend and his child. The plaintiff
has sued these individuals for false arrest. The plaintiff also sued the Livingston
County State’s Attorney claiming that he was the victim of malicious prosecution
because the attorney used illegally obtained evidence to obtain his conviction and
because the attorney pressured him into accepting a plea agreement.
The plaintiff’s complaint is not one for malicious prosecution or false arrest.
Instead, the plaintiff wants to challenge the evidence that led to his conviction via his
plea agreement, and a § 1983 suit may not be used to challenge a prisoner’s conviction
or sentence. In Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646–47 (2004), the Supreme Court
Page 1 of 2
explained that, “[a]lthough damages are not an available habeas remedy, . . . a § 1983
suit for damages that would necessarily imply the invalidity of the fact of an inmate’s
conviction, or necessarily imply the invalidity of the length of an inmate’s sentence, is
not cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the inmate obtains favorable termination
of a state, or federal habeas, challenge to his conviction or sentence.” Id. at 646-47. In
other words, habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a challenge to the fact or
duration of one’s confinement, and therefore, an inmate must first seek to set aside his
conviction through habeas corpus before initiating a § 1983 action that necessarily calls
that conviction into doubt. Burd v. Sessler, 702 F.3d 429, 432 (7th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff has
not done this nor could he amend his complaint to say that he has because, according to
his complaint, he only learned of the convictions a few short months ago.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. This case is closed.
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 of the court is directed to record the
Plaintiff’s strike in the three-strike log.
3. 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.
4. If the 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 Plaintiff plans to
present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the Plaintiff does choose to
appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of
the appeal.
Entered this 9th day of October, 2014.
/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?