Washington v. Lacy et al

Filing 8

MERIT REVIEW ORDER Entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on 5/18/23. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 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 not addressed below are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.2) This dismissal may count as one of the plaintiff 9;s three allotted "strikes" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The Clerk of the Court is directed to record Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log. 3) Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though hi s 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) Plaintiff's motion 4 is denied.5) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal th is 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 $505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (ANW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION
DARNELL WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUELINE M. LACY, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

23-2056

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently detained at Vermilion County Jail, was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now before the Court for a merit review of
Plaintiff’s claims. The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and through such process to
identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. 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.” Id.
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). Conclusory statements
and labels are insufficient—the facts alleged must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lacy and Roberts in their capacities as the elected
State’s Attorney and Assistant State’s Attorney, respectively, charged him with escape under
state law after he allegedly failed to turn himself in at the jail on January 30, 2023. Plaintiff
alleges that jail officials told him he had no outstanding warrants and no paperwork indicating he

Page 1 of 4

was supposed to be in custody when he went to turn himself in. Plaintiff alleges that the judge
presiding over his other state law criminal cases imposed a harsher sentence because of this
charge. Plaintiff makes no allegations against Defendants Meeker and Quick.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), requires the Court to abstain from or dismiss
claims where federal litigation would interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings. Id. at 44;
Mulholland v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 746 F.3d 811, 815 (7th Cir. 2014). Online records
indicate that Plaintiff’s underlying “escape” case is still pending. See People v. Washington, No.
2023 CM 35 (Vermilion Cty., Ill.). 1 Plaintiff’s criminal case proceedings involve the same set of
facts, are judicial in nature, implicate important state interests in enforcing their own laws, and
Plaintiff will have an opportunity to present his constitutional issues in that case. The Court sees
no reason to allow this case to proceed while Plaintiff’s underlying criminal case is still pending.
To the extent that Plaintiff challenges the sentence in his other criminal case, Heck v.
Humphrey, bars claims when a plaintiff’s allegations, if true, would necessarily imply the
invalidity of a criminal conviction. 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). If they would, a plaintiff has no
cause of action under § 1983 “unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,
invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 489. Plaintiff does not
allege that his conviction has been overturned.
Assuming Younger and Heck do not apply, Defendants Lacy and Roberts “are absolutely
immune for actions they undertake in their capacities as prosecutors, even including malicious
prosecution unsupported by probable cause.” Archer v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 612 (7th Cir.
2017). Plaintiff makes no allegations against Defendants Meeker and Quick, and no plausible
inference arises that these individuals were involved in the deprivations Plaintiff alleges. Vance

1

Available at: https://www.vercounty.org/circuit_clerk_case_search.htm (last accessed May 10, 2023).

Page 2 of 4

v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on
personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus, liability does not attach unless the individual
defendant caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation.”).
The Court finds that Younger and Heck bar any claims that Plaintiff alleges, that
Defendants Lacy and Roberts are absolutely immune from any claims that are not barred, and
that no plausible inference arises that Defendants Meeker and Quick were personally involved.
Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. The Court ordinarily grants a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend his or her
complaint, but any amendment Plaintiff could make would be futile.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel (Doc. 4)
Plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in this case. In considering the
Plaintiff’s motion, the court asks: (1) has the indigent Plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to
obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of
the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself? Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has not shown that he made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel
on his own. A plaintiff usually does this by attaching copies of letters sent to attorneys seeking
representation and copies of any responses received. Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the first
prong, the Court does not address the second. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
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 not addressed
below are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
2) This dismissal may 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 Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log.
Page 3 of 4

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) Plaintiff’s motion [4] is denied.
5) 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 $505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective
of the outcome of the appeal.
Entered this 18th day of May, 2023.

s/Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4