Vaughn v. Scherschligt et al
Filing
7
MERIT REVIEW OPINION: This case is closed, and the clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The Clerk of the Court is directed to record Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/13/2015. (MJ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 13 August, 2015 11:22:34 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
POMPII R. VAUGHN JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT J. SCHERSCHLIGHT,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.: 15-3197-SEM-TSH
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This cause is before the Court for a merit review, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, of Plaintiff Pompii R. Vaughn, Jr.’s claims.
I.
MERIT REVIEW UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, the Court is
required to carefully screen a complaint filed by a plaintiff who
seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court must dismiss a
complaint, or a portion thereof, if the plaintiff has raised claims that
are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. The test for
Page 1 of 6
determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether the
plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in
support of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
A complaint fails to state a claim for relief if the complaint does not
allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007);
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true and liberally construes them in plaintiff’s favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). Conclusory
statements and labels are insufficient. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Schatz v.
Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012)
(holding that, in order to determine if a complaint states a plausible
claim, the court must take non-conclusory, non-speculative facts as
true, draw all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor, and
isolate and ignore statements that simply rehash claim elements or
offer only legal labels and conclusions). Instead, sufficient facts
must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation omitted).
Page 2 of 6
II.
ANALYSIS
Vaughn has filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that Defendants—two public defenders, Sangamon County, the
Sangamon State’s Attorney, two Assistant State’s Attorney, and a
state court judge—violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial
and are, thereby, guilty of malicious prosecution. Vaughn contends
that Defendants conspired together to delay his case until Assistant
State’s Attorney Noll dismissed the charges against him in order to
allow Vaughn to be transferred to Arizona for trial on charges
pending in that State. Vaughn contends that his illegal detention in
Illinois has caused him to suffer damages.
Vaughn’s Complaint fails to state a claim. Therefore, this case
is dismissed.
“Under Illinois law, to state a malicious prosecution claim,
[Vaughn] must show (1) the commencement or continuation of an
original criminal or civil proceeding by the defendants; (2)
termination of the proceeding in his favor; (3) the absence of
probable cause; (4) the presence of malice on the defendants’ part;
and (5) damages.” Wade v. Collier, 783 F.3d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir.
Page 3 of 6
2015). A prosecutor’s dismissal of a charge may imply innocence if
the dismissal is not part of a plea bargain. Bridewell v. Eberle, 730
F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 2013).
Here, Vaughn alleges that Defendant Noll dismissed the
charges pending against him in Illinois so that Vaughn could be
prosecuted on charges pending against him in Arizona, not because
the prosecutor determined that Vaughn was factually or legally
innocent of the charges in Illinois. Therefore, it is questionable
whether the proceedings in Illinois were terminated in Vaughn’s
favor for purposes of satisfying all of the essential elements of his
malicious prosecution claim.
The Court need not decide this issue, however, because
Defendants are immune from suit. Defendants are immune from
liability in this suit because it is clear, based upon Vaughn’s
allegations, that Defendants were acting within the scope of their
duties when they committed the acts of which Vaughn complains.
Homola v. McNamara, 59 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir. 1995)(state court
judge immune from § 1983 suit for issuing arrest warrant); Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)(prosecutors are immune from
Page 4 of 6
civil suit under § 1983 for “initiating a prosecution and in
presenting the State’s case.”).1
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff Pompii R. Vaughn, Jr.’s Complaint is dismissed
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any further amendment
to the Complaint would be futile because Vaughn’s claim is not
cognizable, and Vaughn’s motion for counsel [4] is DENIED because
there is no need to recruit counsel to prosecute a claim that is not
cognizable.
2.
This dismissal shall count as one of Vaughn’s three
allotted “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3.
If Vaughn 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 he plans to present on
appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Vaughn does choose to
Neither Pompii’s defense counsel nor Sangamon County can be
held liable for malicious prosecution because they cannot plausibly
be said to have commenced or continued the criminal proceedings
against him.
1
Page 5 of 6
appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee
regardless of the outcome of the appeal.
4.
This case is, therefore, closed, and the clerk is
directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58. The Clerk of the Court is directed to record
Plaintiff’s strike in the three-strike log. All pending motions
are DENIED as moot.
ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2015:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 6 of 6
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?