Harvey v. Lopez et al

Filing 5

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on 2/13/2012 DISMISSING complaint sua sponte and GRANTING leave to amend by 3/12/2012. (CJC, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 13 February, 2012 11:46:37 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
JOHN PIERRE HARVEY
Plaintiff,
v.
VINCENT LOPEZ, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-4013-SLD-JAG

ORDER
On January 23, 2012, the Plaintiff John Pierre Harvey, a prisoner at the Rock Island
County Jail, filed a pro se Complaint in this Court making various factual and legal allegations.
Based on a close reading of the Complaint, the Court believes that Harvey is seeking to allege
the following claims:


A Sixth Amendment violation for ineffective assistance of counsel.



Relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Harvey’s due process rights. The
violations appear to stem specifically from (1) police brutality by Harvey’s
arresting officers; (2) excessive force by Harvey’s arresting officers; and (3) the
failure of Rock Island County Jail to provide needed medical treatment while in
its custody.



Common law defamation of character and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.

As they stand, the allegations are a nearly incomprehensible mixture of law and fact, and
the Court cannot accept Harvey’s Complaint in its current form. For one, Harvey’s Complaint
fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a short and plain

1

statement showing that he is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b). Secondly, the Complaint
fails to comply with Rule 20 because Harvey does not assert that his various claims arise out of
the same transaction or occurrence, or that a question of fact or law is common to the multiple
defendants in his Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(2)(A) and (B); see also George v. Smith, 507
F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different
suits[.]”). Harvey’s Complaint is thus dismissed because of its procedural defects. However,
because Harvey is proceeding pro se, the Court will give him the opportunity to clarify his
claims. He is therefore instructed to allege his causes of action in a manner that identifies his
specific legal claims and their factual basis. Harvey must provide this information in a manner
sufficient for the defendants to understand the claims being asserted against them. The Court
recommends that Harvey list each of his intended defendants, provide a brief statement after
each one informing the Court of the claim against that defendant (i.e. how the defendant violated
his rights), and include the time and place of the events in question. The Court also advises
Harvey to consider the following.
A plaintiff seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must (1) assert a claim that he was
deprived of a federal right, such as a due process right guaranteed under the Fourteenth
Amendment, and (2) assert that the person or people who deprived the plaintiff of that right acted
under color of state law. It is advised that Harvey see and complete the Section 1983 Pro Se
Packet available through the Court. With respect to the common law tort of defamation in
Illinois, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant made a false statement about the
plaintiff; (2) the defendant made an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party;
and (3) the publication caused damages. Green v. Rogers, 917 N.E.2d 450, 459 (2009). A
plaintiff alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress must demonstrate (1) the conduct

2

was extreme and outrageous; (2) the defendant intended his or her conduct to inflict severe
emotional distress; and (3) the conduct must cause severe emotional distress. Feltmeier v.
Feltmeier, 798 N.E.2d 75, 79-80 (2003). The Court further advises that any allegation regarding
ineffective assistance of counsel is premature until after Harvey brings such a claim in state court
and it has been resolved against him.
Finally, Harvey is advised of the mandate of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Pursuant to Rule 11, any contentions in his Complaint must have factual support and must not be
brought merely to harass the defendants. Any frivolous allegations are subject to sanctions at the
Court’s discretion.
Therefore, Harvey is instructed to submit a Complaint that complies with the Local Rules
and this Order by March 12, 2012. Failure to comply by the deadline will result in dismissal of
this case. The Clerk’s office is instructed to provide Harvey a copy of the “Standard 42:1983
Civil Rights Complaint Packet” for him to complete. Entered this 13th day of February, 2012.

s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3