TineyBey v. Jumper et al
Filing
12
OPINION: Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied (d/e 2 ) because he fails to state a federal claim for relief. The hearing scheduled for June 4, 2012, is cancelled as unnecessary. The clerk is directed to notify Plaintiff's detention facility of the cancellation. All pending motions are denied as moot (d/e's 2 , 3 , 4 ), and this case is closed. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 5/31/2012. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 31 May, 2012 02:49:08 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
HAROLD LEE TINEYBEY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAN JUMPER, et al.,
Defendants.
12-CV-3102
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 his claim alleging breach of settlement agreement entered in
a case he pursued in the Northern District of Illinois.
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
1
Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Additionally, a court
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 the
hearing will be 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
2
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content 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).
ANALYSIS
In 2007, Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement in a case he
filed in the Northern District of Illinois, TineyBey v. Peters, 99-CV-2861
(N.D. Ill., Judge Pallmeyer). The agreement provides that Mr. TineyBey
will be allowed to take classes by mail toward his undergraduate degree,
with the Treatment and Dentention Center paying the reasonable cost of
the courses. According to Mr. TineyBey, this provision has been violated
because he must pay to mail in his class work, though he is indigent. As
a result, he has been unable to mail in his work and cannot earn credit
3
toward his degree. Plaintiff also seeks an expansion of the settlement
agreement.
A claim for breach of a settlement agreement is a state law claim,
not a federal claim. Kay v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 547 F.3d
736, 739 (7th Cir. 2008)(“the Constitution does not require state actors
to keep their promises. It requires process before any state may finally
deprive a person of liberty or property (including rights under a contract),
but the opportunity to litigate in state court supplies all the process that
is due for claims of breach.”). Jurisdiction to enforce a settlement
agreement may be explicitly retained by the district court in the original
matter, but that would be a question for the district court that entered
the agreement. See Shapo v. Engle, 463 F.3d 641, 643, 646 (7th
Cir.2006) (acknowledging that federal district courts can retain
jurisdiction to enforce settlements in cases that are dismissed without
prejudice).
The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim, because
the claim is based solely on state law and no independent basis for
4
jurisdiction exists. Plaintiff’s cites to the U.S. Constitution and various
federal statutes do not change the state law nature of his claim. Plaintiff
states no claim for discrimination against him because of his disability
(presumably his mental disorder that makes him a sexually violent
person). Plaintiff is not being denied participation in classes because of
any disability. He is being denied because he cannot afford to mail in his
work. Additionally, Plaintiff has no right under the U.S. Constitution to
educational 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.”). Nor does federal jurisdiction
exist to enforce the Illinois Administrative Code. Guarjardo-Palma v.
Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 806 (7th Cir. 2010)(“[A] violation of state law
5
is not a ground for a federal civil rights suit.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied (d/e
2) because he fails to state a federal claim for relief. The hearing
scheduled for June 4, 2012, is cancelled as unnecessary. The clerk is
directed to notify Plaintiff’s detention facility of the cancellation. All
pending motions are denied as moot (d/e’s 2, 3, 4), and this case is
closed.
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 Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C).
ENTERED: May 31, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?