Woodard v. Cavanagh et al
Filing
5
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/8/2017. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing to state a claim and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such rel ief. This case is CLOSED. Judgment to be entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. This dismissal shall count as one of the plaintiff's three allotted "strikes" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Plaintiff must still pay the full filing fee of $350 even though his case has been dismissed. 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). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 08 March, 2017 09:29:38 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BILLY R. WOODARD, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE CAVANAGH,
SANGAMON COUNTY,
SEVENTH JDISTRICT JUDICIAL
HEAD, STATE’S ATTORNEY,
SHERIFF DEPUTY, and
JOHN DOE,
et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17-CV-3062
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
Plaintiff filed this case pro se from Menard Correctional
Center. The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 This statute requires the Court to review a
complaint filed by a prisoner to identify the cognizable claims and to
dismiss part or all of the complaint if no claim is stated.
1
A prisoner who has had three prior actions dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous or malicious can
no longer proceed in forma pauperis (without prepaying the filing fee in full) unless the prisoner is under
“imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Page 1 of 5
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).
Plaintiff alleges that he was scheduled for release from Pontiac
Correctional Center on November 22, 2013, but he was arrested on
a warrant that day in regards to a criminal charge filed against him
in 2011 in Sangamon County, 11-CF-796 (aggravated battery).
Plaintiff’s attorney moved to dismiss case 11-CF-796 based on
speedy trial violations, but Judge Cavanagh denied the motion on
December 13, 2013, and Plaintiff remained detained. Judge
Cavanagh also allegedly wrongfully held Plaintiff in contempt. On
March 25, 2015, Judge Cavanagh granted the defense counsel’s
motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case. A little over one
month later, Plaintiff was arrested on another criminal charge
(armed habitual criminal), and is now serving a sentence on that
charge.
Page 2 of 5
Plaintiff seeks damages for the time he spent incarcerated
before Judge Cavanagh reconsidered his decision and dismissed the
2011 case. Judge Cavanagh and the State’s Attorney are immune
from damages for claims arising from their actions taken in court.
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)("[I]n initiating a
prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is
immune from a civil suit for damages under section 1983."); Polzin
v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011)( “A judge has absolute
immunity for any judicial actions unless the judge acted in the
absence of all jurisdiction.”). The Sheriff does not violate the
Constitution by arresting and holding Plaintiff pursuant to a valid
warrant, an action which, in any event, occurred in 2013. Brunson
v. Murray, 843 F.3d 698, 708 (7th Cir. 2016)(“A police officer who
receives a facially valid arrest warrant is ordinarily expected to act
upon it, not to second-guess the court's decision to issue it.”). Any
claim based on the 2013 arrest would be barred by the statute of
limitations. Bryant v. City of Chicago, 746 F.3d 239, 241 (7th Cir.
2014)(In Illinois, § 1983 actions are subject to the two-year statute
of limitations in 735 ILCS 5/13-202). Additionally, the Judicial
Page 3 of 5
Inquiry Board does not violate any federal right by failing to take
disciplinary action against Judge Cavanagh.
IT IS ORDERED:
1)
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A for failing to state a claim and for seeking monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Any amendment
to the Complaint would be futile because Judge Cavanagh cannot
be sued in a civil lawsuit for his judicial decisions.
2)
This case is closed. The clerk is directed to enter a
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
3)
This dismissal shall count as one of the plaintiff's three
allotted “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).
4)
Plaintiff must still pay the full filing fee of $350 even
though his case has been dismissed. The agency having custody of
Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of
Court, as directed in the Court's prior order.
5)
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a
notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of
Page 4 of 5
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). If Plaintiff does choose
to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee
irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.
6)
The clerk is directed to record Plaintiff's strike in the
three-strike log.
7)
After receiving Plaintiff’s trust fund ledgers, the clerk
is directed to grant Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma
pauperis for the purpose of allowing Plaintiff to pay the filing
fee in installments.
ENTERED: March 8, 2017
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 5 of 5
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?