Winston v. Wellborn et al

Filing 8

MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 05/29/2014. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied 2 because Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim. Any amendment would be futile because the negligent or unauthorized deprivation of Plaintiff's property did not violate Plaintiff's federal rights. This case is dismissed and closed. (DM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 30 May, 2014 10:57:36 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
ANDRE WINSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMIE WELLBORN, MENARD
WARDEN, AND UNKNOWN
WRIT OFFICERS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14-CV-3101

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and detained in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
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 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 is paid. 28 U.S.C. §
Page 1 of 4 

1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma
pauperis only if the allegations state a federal claim for relief.
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2103). However,
conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts
must be provided to "'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).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff was incarcerated in Menard Correctional Center when
his mother sent him civilian clothes to wear on his impending
release from prison scheduled for December 21, 2013. Instead of
being released, Plaintiff was transferred directly from a state court
proceeding to the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center on
December 19, 2013. Plaintiff was unable to retrieve his property,
including his civilian clothes, from Menard before he was
transferred to Rushville. Plaintiff's attempt to recover his civilian
clothes from Menard have been unsuccessful. The clothes were not
in Plaintiff's property boxes that were eventually sent from Menard
to Rushville. Additionally, officials at the Menard Correctional
Page 2 of 4 

Center are trying to or did wrongfully collect $20.35 from Plaintiff's
prison trust fund.
ANALYSIS
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibits the governmental deprivation of a citizen's life, liberty, or
property without due process of law. However, that does not mean
that all wrongful property deprivations by government actors violate
the Constitution. Negligent property deprivation does not violate
the Constitution. McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir.
2010). Nor does the intentional, unauthorized deprivation of
property violate the U.S. Constitution, provided that adequate
remedies are available under state law. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
517, 533 (1984); Murdock v. Washington, 193 F.3d 510, 513 (7th
Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1134 (2000). The State of Illinois
provides an adequate remedy for Plaintiff's loss in the Illinois Court
of Claims. Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill.2d 104, 113 (2008)(“Where
the alleged negligence is the breach of a duty imposed on the
employee solely by virtue of his state employment, the Court of
Claims has exclusive jurisdiction.”); see also Stewart v. McGinnis, 5
F.3d 1031, 1035-36 (7th Cir. 1993); Davenport v. City of Chicago,
653 F.Supp.2d 885 (N.D. Ill. 2009)(“Pursuant to state law, [Plaintiff]
Page 3 of 4 

may file a tort claim in the Illinois Court of Claims for her property
losses.”)(other citations omitted). For these reasons, the Court sees
no possibility of a federal claim based on Plaintiff's allegations.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied

(2) because Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim. Any amendment
would be futile because the negligent or unauthorized deprivation of
Plaintiff's property did not violate Plaintiff's federal rights.
2.

This case is dismissed and closed. 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 29, 2014
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4