Walls v. People of the State of Illinois
Filing
7
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/17/2012. Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, d/e 2 . The hearing scheduled for 10/29/12 is cancelled. All pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is CLOSED. The clerk is directed to enter judgment. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 17 October, 2012 10:42:35 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
WILLIAM WALLS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
Defendant.
12-CV-3263
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 request for a temporary restraining order to stop alleged
misconduct in his state court detention proceedings.
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
1
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
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.
Plaintiff alleges that the State improperly relied on Plaintiff’s
juvenile records in Plaintiff’s probable cause hearing under the Illinois
Sexually Violent Persons Act, resulting in Plaintiff’s wrongful detention.
Plaintiff contends that his juvenile records are confidential and that the
admission of his juvenile records violated state law. He further contends
that the State acted maliciously in arguing that a statutory exception
allowed consideration of his juvenile records. Plaintiff has attempted to
correct the alleged wrong in his state court proceedings but has not
succeeded. Plaintiff has not yet had his trial on whether he is a sexually
2
violent person; yet, he remains detained pursuant to the probable cause
finding. In this case, Plaintiff asks for a temporary restraining order but
does not specify the particular relief he seeks.
If Plaintiff is asking the Court to intervene in his state detention
proceedings, the Court cannot do so. First, a violation of state law is not,
by itself, a violation of federal law. Guarjardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622
F.3d 801, 806 (7th Cir. 2010)(“[A] violation of state law is not a ground
for a federal civil rights suit.”). A federal court is not an enforcer of state
law. Allison v. Snyder, 332 F.3d 1076, 1079 (7th Cir. 2003)(The federal
constitution does not “permit a federal court to enforce state laws
directly.”). Therefore, if the introduction of Plaintiff’s juvenile records
violates only state law, this Court does not have the authority to enjoin
the violation. The Court cannot discern the violation of any federal right
arising from the introduction of Plaintiff’s juvenile records in state court.
Second, even if the Court could discern a federal violation, the
Court cannot interfere in pending state commitment proceedings.
3
Sweeney v. Bartow, 612 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff in
Sweeney, while awaiting a trial under the Illinois Sexually Violent
Persons Act, filed a federal habeas corpus action, challenging the state
court’s denial of his motion to dismiss on ex post facto grounds. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the habeas
action pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), which in
general prohibits federal court interference in state court criminal
proceedings. The Seventh Circuit in Sweeney held that the Younger
doctrine required the federal court to abstain from interfering in civil
commitment proceedings under the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act
unless “immediate federal intervention is necessary to prevent the
challenge from becoming moot[,]” such as a speedy trial or double
jeopardy challenge. Sweeney, 612 F.3d at 573. As in Sweeney, here
Plaintiff’s challenges are not in danger of becoming moot.
In sum, Plaintiff states no federal claim, and, even if he did, the
Court cannot interfere in his state commitment proceedings.
Accordingly, his petition to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied.
4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied (d/e
2). The hearing scheduled for October 29, 2012, is cancelled. The clerk
is directed to notify Plaintiff’s detention facility of the cancellation. All
pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is closed. The clerk is
directed to enter judgment.
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:
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES 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?