Augusta v. Knox County Sheriffs Department et al
Filing
11
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 5/25/2016. See written Order (Rule 16 Deadline 7/25/2016.) Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states a Fourth Amen dment claim for the execution of an allegedly facially invalid search warrant against defendant Brian Brady. No service shall issue at this time. This case is stayed for the reasons stated above. Clerk is directed to add Brian Brady, Galesburg Pol ice Officer as a defendant. The clerk is directed to terminate the Knox County Sheriff's Department, Galesburg Police Department, Kyle Winbigler, John T. Pepmeyer, Steven Mathers, and Paul Mangeri as defendants. The plaintiff's motion f or counsel is denied 5 , with leave to renew upon demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his own counsel. Pruitt v.Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). This typically requires writing to several lawyers and attaching the responses. If Pl aintiff renews his motion, he should set forth how far he has gone in school, any jobs he has held inside and outside of prison, any classes he has taken in prison, and any prior litigation experience he has. The plaintiff's 3 motion to proce ed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The clerk is directed to again request trust fund ledgers from the Knox County Jail and assess an initial partial filing fee accordingly. The plaintiff's motion to add case to jury calendar 7 is DENIED at thi s time. Plaintiff's motion for status 9 is DENIED as MOOT. The plaintiff's motion to substitute party 8 is DENIED. Defendant Mangeri has been dismissed for the reasons stated above. The Knox County Jail is a building and not a pers on that may be sued under ' 1983. Wright v. Porter County, 2013 WL 1176199, *2 (N.D. Inc. Mar. 19, 2013)("Wright also sues the jail itself, but this is a building, not a "person" or even a policy-making body that can be sued for constitutional violations.") Plaintiff is directed to provide the Court with a status update on his underlying criminal proceedings by August 15, 2016. (LN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 25 May, 2016 04:18:36 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
QUENNEL AUGUSTA,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KNOX COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, )
et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
16-4032
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a pretrial detainee at the Knox County Jail, is
requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now 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 filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Galesburg
police officers unlawfully executed a defective search warrant at his home. The warrant
was allegedly signed by Defendant Mathers, a judge. The plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Pepmeyer, the State’s Attorney, ignored his letters requesting dismissal and charged the
plaintiff anyway. The plaintiff alleges that despite the defect in the warrant and insufficient
evidence, Defendant Mangeri, the presiding judge in his criminal matter, still found
probable cause. According to online records from Knox County, the plaintiff’s criminal
matter is still pending. See People v. Augusta, No. 14-CF-229 (Knox Co., Ill.) (available at:
http://www.9thjudicial.org) (last accessed May 11, 2016).
The plaintiff also alleges unrelated incidents where Defendant Winbigler, a police
officer, fabricated a traffic violation to pull him over, primarily because the plaintiff was
driving a Lexus and studies show that Lexus vehicles get pulled over more often. The
plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Winbigler unlawfully arrested him for domestic
violence, but that the case was later dropped either through dismissal or a decision not to
charge. Finally, the plaintiff alleges that police officers unlawfully ceased $10,000 in U.S.
Currency from him and he wants it back.
Plaintiff states a plausible Fourth Amendment claim against the police officers who
executed an allegedly facially invalid search warrant. Plaintiff does not name any specific
officers as defendants, but mentions Officer Brian Brady as the officer who executed the
search warrant. Accordingly, Officer Brady will be added as a defendant.
Defendants Mathers, Mangeri, and Pepmeyer are immune from suit under § 1983
for actions taken in their respective capacities as judge and prosecuting attorney. Polzin v.
Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011) (“A judge has absolute immunity for any judicial
actions….”); Lewis v. Mills, 677 F.3d 324, 330 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Prosecutors are entitled to
absolute immunity when they are performing functions—such as determining whether
charges should be brought and initiating a prosecution—‘intimately associated with the
judicial phase of the criminal process.’” (quoting Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 270
(1993)).
The plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendant Winbigler are unrelated to the
claims regarding the execution of the search warrant. Therefore, those claims will be
dismissed pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (separate claims
against different defendants should be brought in separate lawsuits). If the plaintiff desires
to pursue these claims, he must file a separate lawsuit.
Finally, the online records from Knox County indicate that Plaintiff’s underlying
criminal case is scheduled for pretrial conference on July 5, 2016. The Court finds that a
stay of the proceedings is appropriate pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
Plaintiff’s state court proceedings involve the same set of facts, the criminal charges are
judicial in nature, state proceedings implicate important state interests in enforcing
criminal laws, Plaintiff will have an opportunity to present his federal constitutional issues,
and no extraordinary circumstances exist that suggest that the federal case should go
forward at the same time as the state case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
court finds that the plaintiff states a Fourth Amendment claim for the execution of an
allegedly facially invalid search warrant against defendant Brian Brady. No service shall
issue at this time. This case is stayed for the reasons stated above.
2.
Clerk is directed to add Brian Brady, Galesburg Police Officer as a defendant.
3.
The clerk is directed to terminate the Knox County Sheriff’s Department,
Galesburg Police Department, Kyle Winbigler, John T. Pepmeyer, Steven Mathers, and Paul
Mangeri as defendants.
4.
The plaintiff’s motion for counsel is denied [5], with leave to renew upon
demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his own counsel. Pruitt v.Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). This typically requires writing to several lawyers and attaching the
responses. If Plaintiff renews his motion, he should set forth how far he has gone in school,
any jobs he has held inside and outside of prison, any classes he has taken in prison, and
any prior litigation experience he has.
5.
The plaintiff’s [3] motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The
clerk is directed to again request trust fund ledgers from the Knox County Jail and assess an
initial partial filing fee accordingly.
6.
The plaintiff’s motion to add case to jury calendar [7] is DENIED at this time.
Plaintiff’s motion for status [9] is DENIED as MOOT. The plaintiff’s motion to substitute
party [8] is DENIED. Defendant Mangeri has been dismissed for the reasons stated above.
The Knox County Jail is a building and not a “person” that may be sued under ' 1983.
Wright v. Porter County, 2013 WL 1176199, *2 (N.D. Inc. Mar. 19, 2013)(AWright also sues
the jail itself, but this is a building, not a Aperson@ or even a policy-making body that can be
sued for constitutional violations.@)
7.
Plaintiff is directed to provide the Court with a status update on his
underlying criminal proceedings by August 15, 2016.
Entered this 25th day of May, 2016.
/s/ Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?