Brown v. Doe
Filing
7
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/5/2015. The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. This case is closed. This dismissal s hall 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 the plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log. The plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his case has been dismissed. The agency having custody of the plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order. If the plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may 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 MUST set forth the issues the plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. (LN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 05 March, 2015 12:33:19 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
OSCAR LEE BRIOWN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 15-3024
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a pretrial detainee at the Sangamon County Jail,
was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This case is now before the court for a
merit review of the plaintiff's claims. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to
“screen” the plaintiff’s complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any
legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. 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.”
28 U.S.C. §1915A.
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff claims he
was assaulted by his cellmate on January 31, 2013, and, as a result, filed a federal civil
lawsuit against jail officials for failure to protect him (Central District of Illinois Case
No. 14-CV-3003). In the instant case, the plaintiff is attempting to sue the Sangamon
County State’s Attorney for failure to prosecute his cellmate for the alleged assault.
Plaintiff claims that the State’s Attorney’s decision not to prosecute violates his Equal
Protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability in § 1983 suits brought against
prosecutorial actions that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the
criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 428-430 (1976); Van de Kamp v.
Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 335 (2009). Plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations that
would deprive the Sangamon County State’s Attorney of his right to immunity.
Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
The plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. This case is closed.
1
2.
This dismissal shall 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
the plaintiff’s strike in the three-strike log.
3.
The plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his
case has been dismissed. The agency having custody of the plaintiff shall
continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the
Court's prior order.
4.
If the plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may 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 MUST set forth the issues the
plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the
plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee
irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.
Entered this 5th day of March, 2014.
/s/Harold A. Baker
_________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?