Meeker v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 9

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/5/2017. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with leave to replead, within 30 days, if he wishes to proceed under § 1983. If not, he is to inform the Court w ithin that same time and he will not be assessed a filing fee. Failure to file an amended complaint may result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice. 2) Plaintiff's Motion for Status 8 is rendered MOOT as a result of this Order. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 05 April, 2017 09:40:09 AM
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 ORDER
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the Hill Correctional Center, proceeds pro se
alleging kidnapping, slander and false imprisonment against the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) and the State of Illinois. It appears that Plaintiff’s allegations
arise from a felony conviction for which he is currently serving a sentence. 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-unlawfullyharmed-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 allegations are sparse, stating only that he was kidnapped and
wrongfully imprisoned as a result of an unidentified felony conviction. It is unclear
whether Plaintiff is asserting a § 1983 action or intends to file a habeas petition. This,
particularly, as he asks for neither equitable relief nor money damages. If Plaintiff
intends this as a § 1983 claim, he does not provide sufficient information to determine
whether this is an Eighth Amendment claim, which might be barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), or a Fourth Amendment claim, which might not. Wallace
v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 395, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007); Dominguez v. Hendley,
545 F.3d 585, 589 (7th Cir. 2008) (“the Supreme Court has held that, unlike fair trial
claims, Fourth Amendment claims as a group do not necessarily imply the invalidity of
a criminal conviction, and so such claims are not suspended under the Heck bar to
suit.”) If, however, it was not Plaintiff’s intention to file a § 1983 action, he is to inform
the Court within 30 days and he will not be assessed the filing fee.
The Complaint is dismissed as Fed.R.Civ.P 8(a)(2) provides that a pleading must
contain a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to the relief
sought. As the Seventh Circuit has consistently noted, “the essential function of a
complaint under the civil rules...is to put the defendant on notice of the plaintiff’s
claim.” Ross Brothers Construction Co., Inc, v. International Steel Services, Inc., 2002 WL
413172, at *6 (7th Cir. 2002) quoting Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th Cir.
2001). This complaint fails to identify any requested relief and fails to provide notice to
the Defendants of the claims against them.
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed with leave to replead, within 30 days, if
he wishes to proceed under § 1983. If not, he is to inform the Court within that same
time and he will not be assessed a filing fee. Failure to file an amended complaint may
result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice.
2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Status [8] is rendered MOOT as a result of this

Order.

_4/5/2017
ENTERED

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

3