Meeker v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 12

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/11/2017. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint 11 , is GRANTED. 2) Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a clai m pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any further amendment to the Complaint would be futile because one claim is Heck-barred and the other fails to implicate a protected liberty interest. This case is therefore closed. T he 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). The Clerk of the Court is directed to recor d Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log. 4) Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing 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 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 $455 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 11 May, 2017 01:19:35 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RAYMOND MEEKER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
And STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Defendants.

No.: 16-cv-4207-MMM

MERIT REVIEW –AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the Hill Correctional Center, has filed a motion
for leave [ECF 11] and amended complaint against the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) and the State of Illinois. The case is before the Court for a merit
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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, (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).
While the pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v.
Ryker, 451 Fed. Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009).

1

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed as vague and too confusing to state a
claim. His amended complaint is not much better. Plaintiff has submitted documents
establishing that, on May 11, 2012, he was convicted of criminal sexual assault and
sentenced to 14 years in prison. Plaintiff was given credit for 49 days spent in pretrial
custody and sentenced to a term of Mandatory Supervise Release (“MSR”) from three
years to natural life. Plaintiff provides a copy of the sentencing order as well as well as
a sentence calculation sheet from the Illinois River Correctional Center and another
from the Lawrence Correctional Center, [ECF 11 p. 4 and 5], respectively. He asserts
that he has been imprisoned on “false documents” and requests immediate release.
As to the sentencing order, Plaintiff alleges that Judge Fahey, “never offered a
sentences agreement in Court for [him] to sign” and that an unspecified box had not
been checked. If Plaintiff disagrees with the fact of his conviction or duration of his
sentence, he may not dispute it in a § 1983 claim unless that conviction or sentence has
been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). “When a state prisoner
seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in
favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence. “ Id. at 487. See also, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (habeas is
exclusive remedy for plaintiff challenging the duration of custody, seeking speedier
release).
As to the calculations sheets, Plaintiff alleges that on January 8, 2014, someone
from field services “processed me out” and then “process me back in” on the same
2

charges. While it is not clear, Plaintiff appears to claim that this apparently clerical
function changed his projected out date. Each of the calculation worksheets shows a
mandatory out date of March 22, 2026. The calculations from Illinois River show a
projected out date of February 16, 2024, while the one from Lawrence shows a projected
out date of April 11, 2024. [ECF 11 p. 4-5]. The Seventh Circuit has held, however, that
a prisoner does not have a protected liberty interest in a projected, as opposed to
mandatory, release date. Kendrick v. Hamblin, 606 Fed.Appx. 836 (7th Cir. 2015).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint [ECF 11], is

GRANTED.
2) Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any further amendment to
the Complaint would be futile because one claim is Heck-barred and the other fails to
implicate a protected liberty interest. This case is therefore 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). The Clerk of the Court is directed to record
Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log.
4)

Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing 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.

3

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 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 $455 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.

_5/11/2017
ENTERED

s/Michael M. Mihm
MICHAEL M. MIHM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4