MacKintosh v. Jumper et al
Filing
7
OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 3/28/2016. IT IS ORDERED: 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. This case is dismissed, without prejudice to refiling as a habeas action after the exhaustion of state court remedies regarding Plaintiff's civil commitment. This case is closed. All pending motions are denied as moot [4, 5]. See full Opinion attached. (RK, ilcd) Modified on 3/28/2016 to correct typo (RK, ilcd).
E-FILED
Monday, 28 March, 2016 01:09:27 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CURTIS J. MACKINTOSH,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHAN JUMPER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16-CV-4061
OPINION
JOE BILLY MCDADE, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and detained in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and
fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who,
within the District Court's sound discretion, would remain without
legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster
v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972).
Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma
pauperis “at any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim, even if part of the filing fee is paid. 28 U.S.C. §
Page 1 of 4
1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma
pauperis only if the allegations state a federal claim for relief.
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. 2103). 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).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, who provide him group
therapy and evaluate his progress, are not licensed. He asserts that
the lack of licensing violates that United States Constitution. He
seeks $270,000 and his immediate release with no supervision.
The alleged lack of licensing might violate state professional
standards or state law, but a violation of state law generally does
not, by itself, violate federal law. Guarjardo-Palma v. Martinson,
622 F.3d 801, 806 (7th Cir. 2010)(“[A] violation of state law is not a
ground for a federal civil rights suit.”); Allison v. Snyder, 332 F.3d
1076, 1079 (7th Cir. 2003)(The federal constitution does not “permit
a federal court to enforce state laws directly.”). Plaintiff is
Page 2 of 4
constitutionally entitled to adequate treatment for his mental
disorder, as determined by professionals exercising their
professional judgment, but the alleged lack of a state license does
not plausibly suggest that the individuals who are treating Plaintiff
are not professionals or are not exercising professional judgment.
See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 323 (1982)(decisions by
professionals about mental health facility’s operations afforded
deference and violate the Constitution only if professional judgment
not exercised).
Additionally, the legal path for Plaintiff to seek release from his
confinement is, generally, to challenge his confinement in his state
court commitment proceedings, then pursue all available state
court appeals, and then pursue a habeas action in federal court. A
legal challenge to detention cannot be made in a federal civil rights
action for damages. Sweeney v. Bartow, 612 F.3d 571 (7th Cir.
2010)(Younger abstention doctrine counseled against federal court
interference in ongoing state commitment proceedings under the
Sexually Violent Persons Act); Varner v. Monohan, 460 F.3d 861
(7th Cir. 2006)(example of habeas action by sexually violent person
challenging constitutionality of commitment procedures); DeWalt v.
Page 3 of 4
Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 614 (7th Cir. 2000)(challenges to fact or
duration of confinement must be pursued in habeas action, not in
an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied
(3) because Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a federal claim and
challenges to confinement may be pursued in federal court only
through a habeas action, after exhausting state court remedies.
2.
This case is dismissed, without prejudice to refiling as a
habeas action after the exhaustion of state court remedies
regarding Plaintiff’s civil commitment.
3.
No filing fee shall be assessed.
4.
This case is closed. All pending motions are denied as
moot (4, 5).
ENTERED: 3/28/2016
FOR THE COURT:
s/Joe Billy McDade
JOE BILLY MCDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 4
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?