TineyBey v. Department of Human Services, Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility et al
Filing
19
OPINION: Plaintiff's petitions to proceed in forma pauperis are denied (d/e's 2, 9) because he fails to state any federal claims for relief. All pending motions are denied as moot (d/e's 3, 6, 11), and this case is closed. See written Opinion. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/5/2012. (MJ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 05 March, 2012 12:19:04 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
HAROLD LEE TINEYBEY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELLE SADDLER et al.,
Defendants.
11-CV-3357
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently detained in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on systemic challenges to the conditions at the facility.
The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and
fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the
District Court's sound 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). Additionally, a court
1
must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the
action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the
filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court
grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint states a
federal claim. A hearing was scheduled to assist in this review but has
been cancelled as unnecessary.
LEGAL STANDARD
To state a claim, the allegations must set forth a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to
give “‘fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.’” EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th
Cir. 2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007)(add’l citation omitted). The factual “allegations must plausibly
suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility
above a ‘speculative level.’” Id., quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
2
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing
Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555-56. However, pro se pleadings are
liberally construed when applying this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557
F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention
Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act.
He alleges that he is “denied the right to technical assistance in the
form of a personal computer, demonstration projects, dissemination of
information and implementation of scientific based research located in
established libraries.” He also alleges denial of access to the law library
at the facility and describes that library as inadequate because he can
access only “criminal state or federal constitutional law.” He also asserts
that the electronic filing system (recently begun at the facility through a
3
cooperative agreement between this Court and the facility) does not
work and has prevented him from timely filing documents.
Plaintiff further alleges that he has been denied the right to a job in
the facility and denied his right to earn minimum wage. He alleges that
he has a right to a therapeutic and positive atmosphere but instead is
constantly harassed and treated in a punitive manner. He wants to be
treated like a patient, not a prisoner. He further alleges he should be
receiving educational and vocational training to prepare him for gainful
employment when he is released. He assails the facility’s requirement
that all outgoing mail be stamped with a return address indicating that
the mail comes from a detention center for sexually violent persons. He
contends this violates his right to privacy and his right to communicate.
Lastly, Plaintiff appears to allege that he received a false
disciplinary report on August 21, 2011, charging him with various rule
violations that he did not commit.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to a computer or to access
4
libraries outside of the facility. See, e.g., Roberts v. Cohn, 63 F.Supp.2d
921, 924 (N.D. Ind. 1999)(“It is well established that prison inmates do
not have a constitutional right to use or possess typewriters and word
processors.”). He has no constitutional right to a well-stocked law
library, and his allegations fail to give rise to a plausible inference that he
suffered any actual prejudice from denial of access to the courts caused
by the alleged inadequate law library, his inability to make copies, or the
alleged delays in the electronic filing system. Ortloff v. United States,
335 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2003)(“[A] right to access-to-courts claim
exists only if a prisoner is unreasonably prevented from presenting
legitimate grievances to a court; various resources, documents, and
supplies merely provide the instruments for reasonable access and are
not protected in and of themselves. Thus, when a plaintiff alleges a
denial of the right to access-to-courts, he must usually plead specific
prejudice to state a claim.”)(abrogated on other grounds as recognized in
Parrott v. U.S., 536 F.3d 629, 635 (7th Cir. 2008)).
Plaintiff has no federal right to a job inside the facility and no right
5
to earn any wages. He has no federal right to educational or vocational
opportunities. See Garza v. Miller, 688 F.2d 480, 485 (7th Cir.
1982)(inmate has no constitutional interest in educational or job
opportunities); Elliott v. Baker, 2008 WL 4876871 *2 (N.D. Ill.
2008)(not published in F.Supp.2d)(“The federal Constitution does not
require state authorities to provide convicted prisoners educational,
rehabilitative, or vocational opportunities . . . . The Court is unaware of
any authority, nor does Elliott cite any, suggesting that the rules are
different for civilly committed persons.”).
Plaintiff’s vague claims of harassment, intimidation and a punitive
atmosphere do not state a federal claim. Nor do his claims about the
alleged false disciplinary report, because he lists no deprivation he
suffered other than the false report itself. The fact that the report was
false does not by itself violate the Constitution. See Leslie v. Doyle, 125
F.3d 1132, 1136 (7th Cir. 1998)("Broadly speaking, the Constitution
does not create a cause of action for arbitrary and purposeless acts by
officials per se, . . . ; it prohibits the abuse of power that effects a
6
significant deprivation.").
Even imagining that Plaintiff suffered a
constitutional deprivation as a result of the ticket, no plausible inference
arises that he was denied any procedural due process before that
deprivation was imposed.
Further, no federal claim is stated arising from the required return
address on outgoing mail. Plaintiff has no constitutionally protected
privacy interest in not revealing the title of the facility in which he is
held. That is a matter of public record, as are his convictions. See
www.isp.state.il.us (search sex offender information; search for name
Tiney-Bey); see also Grennier v. Frank, 453 F.3d 442, 445 (7th Cir.
2006)(sex offender stigma alone did not trigger procedural due process
protections). The stamp does not impede Plaintiff’s ability to send
outgoing mail. That the stamp may cause the recipients of that mail to
decline to respond does not change the Court’s conclusion.
Lastly, to the extent Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Illinois
Administrative Code, he fails to state a federal claim for relief.
Guarjardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 806 (7th Cir. 2010)(“[A]
7
violation of state law is not a ground for a federal civil rights suit.”)
In sum, Plaintiff’s Complaint states no plausible claims. In fact,
Plaintiff’s claims border on the frivolous or harassing. Plaintiff may be
required to post bond in future cases to cover potential costs and
sanctions. See McGill v. Faulkner, 18 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir.
1994)("[T]he rule that indigent prisoners, like anybody else, may be
required to reimburse costs others have expended defending the
prisoners' unsuccessful suits serves the valuable purposes of discouraging
unmeritorious claims and treating all unsuccessful litigants alike.");
Anderson v. Steers, 998 F.2d 495, 496 (7th Cir. 1993)(upholding
requirement that pro se plaintiff post $10,000.00 bond in "apparently
frivolous" action).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s petitions to proceed in forma pauperis are denied
(d/e’s 2, 9) because he fails to state any federal claims for relief. All
pending motions are denied as moot (d/e’s 3, 6, 11), and this case is
closed.
8
2.
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 Plaintiffs plan to present on appeal. See Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C).
ENTERED: March 5, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
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?