Jones v. City of Lincoln et al
Filing
10
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 8/10/15. IT IS ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, asbarred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 2) Plaintiffs motion to amend is construed as a m otion to join claims about the conditions of Logan County Jail. The motion is denied 7 . 3) If Plaintiff seeks to pursue claims about the Logan County Jail, he may file a motion to sever by August 31, 2015, attaching a proposed amended complaint abo ut the conditions at the Sangamon County Jail. If Plaintiff does not file a motion to sever, his claims about the Jail will be dismissed, without prejudice, and this case will be closed. If Plaintiff does file a motion to sever, a new case will be opened and a new filing fee assessed, and then this case will be closed. 4) Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order is denied 9 . 5) Plaintiffs motion for status is denied as moot 6 . 6) The clerk is directed to close this case. 7) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal the dismissal of his Complaint, 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). (See Full Written Order).(VP, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 10 August, 2015 10:30:21 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEFFREY T. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LINCOLN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15-CV-3078
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
Plaintiff filed this case pro se while incarcerated in the IDOC.
He has since been released on parole. The case is before the Court
for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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. 2013). 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)(quoted
cite omitted).
Page 1 of 8
Allegations
Plaintiff alleges that, on February 2, 2013, he was arrested
without probable cause. In particular, Plaintiff was at a bar late
that evening when he had words with a woman. The woman’s
boyfriend took umbrage and began harassing Plaintiff. Plaintiff
decided to leave the bar but first visited the restroom. The woman’s
boyfriend followed Plaintiff into the restroom and allegedly attacked
Plaintiff. Plaintiff “turned and very briefly defended himself.”
(Complaint para. 8). (Evidence that Plaintiff broke the boyfriend’s
cheeks, orbitals, and neck were allegedly false; these injuries were
preexisting according to the boyfriend’s medical records, Compl.
para 45.) According to Plaintiff, he and the boyfriend then reached
a detente, and Plaintiff thought that was the end of the matter.
That was not the end of the matter. The woman called police,
who arrested Plaintiff based on false accounts by the woman and
the boyfriend. The officers allegedly knew that these witnesses were
unreliable based on past dealings, but the officers conducted no
further investigation, interviewed no other witnesses, and falsely
represented evidence on the police reports. The prosecutors
allegedly failed to conduct any meaningful investigation and ignored
Page 2 of 8
exculpatory evidence, relying instead on alleged perjured testimony
and other false evidence to continue their prosecution of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s public and/or private defenders failed to render effective
assistance of counsel and were allegedly in on the conspiracy to
prosecute Plaintiff, along with the state court judge.
Plaintiff felt he had no choice but to plead guilty to the charge
of aggravated battery in a public place of accommodation. The
criminal docket reflects that Plaintiff pled guilty to aggravated
battery in a public place and was sentenced to 3 ½ years. People v.
Jones, 13-CF-46 (Logan County, judici.com)(last visited 8/6/15).
According to the docket, Plaintiff appealed the case in May of 2015.
Plaintiff alleges that this conviction is just another example of
Defendants repeatedly arresting and prosecuting him without
probable cause over the years.
Analysis
A civil action is not the way to challenge the validity of a
criminal conviction. Under the Supreme Court case of Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), “a district court must dismiss a §
1983 action if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in that § 1983
action would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal
Page 3 of 8
conviction or sentence.” Helman v. Duhaime, 742 F.3d 760, 762
(7th Cir. 2014). The Heck rule applies even though Plaintiff has now
served his sentence. Burd v. Sessler, 702 F.3d 429 (7th Cir.
2012)(Heck applied where former prisoner failed to pursue remedies
for challenging conviction while in prison).
This civil action attempts to do exactly what Heck bars:
challenge the validity of Plaintiff’s criminal conviction for aggravated
battery. If Plaintiff’s allegations about false evidence, conspiracy,
malicious prosecution and coercion are true, then his conviction
should not stand.
Even Plaintiff’s claim for arrest without probable cause is
barred by Heck, which often is not the case. See, e.g., Evans v.
Poskon, 603 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2010)(excessive force in arrest claim
not barred by Heck); Rollins v. Willett, 770 F.3d 575, 576 (7th Cir.
2014)(unreasonable seizure claim not barred by Heck). The
essential elements of the crime to which Plaintiff pled guilty—
aggravated battery in a place of public accommodation—are the
same as the elements of a simple battery: “knowingly without legal
justification by any means (1) caus[ing] bodily harm to an individual
or (2) mak[ing] physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature
Page 4 of 8
with an individual.” 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05; 720 ILCS 5/12-3(a);
People v. Murphy, 145 Ill.App.3d 813 (3rd Dist 1986)(a bar is a place
of public accommodation). Plaintiff’s guilty plea necessarily
required him to admit to these elements. He now contends that he
was innocent and his plea coerced. Only one version can be true,
which is why Heck bars the claims in this case. See Holly v.
Boudreau, 103 Fed.Appx. 36 (7th Cir. 2004)(not reported in Federal
Reporter)(allegations in §1983 suit that false police report and
ineffective assistance of counsel coerced guilty plea and would be
barred by Heck); Chriswell v. Village of Oak Lawn, 2013 WL
5903417 (N.D. Ill. 2013)(Fourth Amendment false arrest claim
barred where plaintiff pled guilty “to the very behavior that would
have constituted probable cause for her arrest.”). Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed as barred by Heck.1
Motion to Amend
Plaintiff filed a “motion to amend” to add claims regarding
alleged inhumane conditions of confinement at the Logan County
Jail while Plaintiff was detained there pending the resolution of the
criminal charges against him. These claims are not properly joined
1
Even if Heck did not bar these claims, the prosecutors and judge would be immune and no federal claim for
malpractice exists against public defenders or private attorneys.
Page 5 of 8
in this case because they are against different Defendants and
involve different transactions and occurrences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1820. If Plaintiff seeks to pursue these claims, he may file a motion to
sever with a proposed complaint confined to the Jail conditions.
Plaintiff will need to pay a new filing fee or filing a current petition
to proceed in forma pauperis in the new case. The remainder of
Plaintiff’s motion to amend appears to regard his aggravated battery
conviction or vague events which occurred in 2010 and before,
which would be barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
Bryant v. City of Chicago, 746 F.3d 239, 241 (7th Cir. 2014)(In
Illinois, section 1983 actions are subject to the two-year statute of
limitations in 735 ILCS 5/13-202).
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to stop what
Plaintiff describes as harassment and retaliation in the form of
multiple arrests, allegedly without probable cause. Putting aside
that only the 2013 arrest is at issue in this case, Plaintiff has not
met any of the requirements for warranting preliminary injunctive
relief. Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of
America, 549 F.3d 1079, 1085 (7th Cir. 2008)(“[A] preliminary
Page 6 of 8
injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be
indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.”)(quoted cites and
internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s fear of being
prosecuted without probable cause is too speculative to support
injunctive relief. Capeheart v. Terrell, 695 F.3d 681 (7th Cir.
2012)(prospective relief not available unless the danger is “real and
immediate,” not “conjectural”)(quoted cites omitted).
IT IS ORDERED:
1)
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, as
barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
2)
Plaintiff’s motion to amend is construed as a motion to
join claims about the conditions of Logan County Jail. The motion
is denied [7].
3)
If Plaintiff seeks to pursue claims about the Logan
County Jail, he may file a motion to sever by August 31, 2015,
attaching a proposed amended complaint about the conditions at
the Sangamon County Jail. If Plaintiff does not file a motion to
sever, his claims about the Jail will be dismissed, without prejudice,
and this case will be closed. If Plaintiff does file a motion to sever, a
Page 7 of 8
new case will be opened and a new filing fee assessed, and then this
case will be closed.
4)
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction/temporary
restraining order is denied [9].
5)
Plaintiff’s motion for status is denied as moot [6].
6)
The clerk is directed to close this case.
7)
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal the dismissal of his
Complaint, 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: 8/10/2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/James E. Shadid
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 8
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?