Bobby E Wright v. Monreal et al

Filing 9

MERIT REVIEW ORDER - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 7/20/2015. The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. By August 10, 2015, the plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint or filing an amended complaint which fails to state a federal claim for relief will result in dismissal of this action. (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 20 July, 2015 12:28:37 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BOBBY E. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ADAM P. MONREAL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15-3140

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This case is 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.
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in the 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)(citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the
complaint and has also held a merit review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a
chance to personally explain his claims to the Court.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated in the Western
Illinois Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The
plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that his
parole/mandatory supervised release was revoked in June of 2014 with no advance
notice to him and no chance for him to participate in the hearing. The first he heard of
the revocation was in December of 2014 when he was informed that the Board had
revoked his eligibility for parole, and that his release date was extended to July of 2015.
The prisoner review board members are absolutely immune from their decision
to revoke parole eligibility. Their immunity extends to the process they followed in
making that decision. Wilson v. Kelkhoff, 86 F.3d 1438 (7th Cir. 1986)(prisoner review
board members absolutely immune from procedural due process claim). The plaintiff
might have a claim if the members committed constitutional violations outside their
quasi-judiciary roles, such as if a member filed a false report to initiate the revocation
1

proceedings. However, no plausible inference arises from the present allegations that
any of the defendants acted outside their quasi-judicial roles. The complaint will be
dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint. I
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.
2. By August 10, 2015, the plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint.
Failure to file an amended complaint or filing an amended complaint which fails to
state a federal claim for relief will result in dismissal of this action.
Entered this 20th day of July, 2015.

________s/Harold A. Baker________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2