Hanson v. McClintok et al
Filing
8
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sara Darrow on 3/31/2017. See written Order. Plaintiff's 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 amendment to the Complaint would be futile. This case is therefore terminated. All pending motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. 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. Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his case has been dismissed. The agency h aving custody of Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order. 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.(ED, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 31 March, 2017 03:27:35 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
RONALD E. HANSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREG MCCLINTOK, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17-4023
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center,
brings the present lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations related
to the prosecution of the crime for which he was ultimately convicted. The matter comes before
this Court for merit review under 28 U.S.C. §1915A. In reviewing the complaint, the Court
takes all factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in 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) (internal citation omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that, in April 2009, he was detained at gun point without a legal basis at
the direction of Defendant Edwards, the Warren County Sheriff. During this seizure, Plaintiff
alleges he suffered emotional distress after several police officers failed to follow proper gun
safety protocol. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Raymond, the lead detective, ordered the
removal of Plaintiff’s guns.
Page 1 of 4
Then, in July 2009, Plaintiff alleges that a judge ordered that he give all his guns (valued
at over $100,000) to his ex-wife. Plaintiff alleges his ex-wife then sold the guns to Defendant
Johnson, an attorney Plaintiff later hired in his criminal case, at a fraction of the price. Plaintiff
alleges he received nothing from this sale. Plaintiff does not disclose whether the court order is
related to his criminal case.
Plaintiff alleges next that he was prosecuted illegally. When Defendant Johnson
unexpectedly withdrew his representation, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Cavanaugh, the
presiding judge, did not allow him an opportunity to hire new counsel. Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant Algren, an attorney whom Plaintiff had known for 40 years, improperly remained on
the case as the prosecuting attorney.
Plaintiff also names another judge, Defendant McClintok, but he does not make any
specific allegations against him in his complaint. In an affidavit attached to the complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant McClintok grew up in the same community and “used to swap
out his car for my motorcycle on weekends so that his father would not discover our behavior.”
ANALYSIS
Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity when they are performing
functions…‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.’” Lewis v.
Mills, 677 F.3d 324, 330 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 270
(1993)). Likewise, judges are entitled to absolute immunity for any judicial functions. Polzin v.
Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011). For these reasons, Plaintiff cannot pursue federal
claims against Defendants Cavanaugh or Algren, or against the unnamed judge who ordered the
surrender of his gun collection.
Page 2 of 4
Plaintiff does not provide the reasons Defendant Johnson withdrew his representation, but
private lawyers are not state actors for purposes of § 1983. Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312
(1981); Walton v. Neslund, 248 Fed. Appx. 733, 733 (7th Cir. 2007) (private lawyers are not state
actors when the lawyer “performs the traditional function of counsel to a defendant in a criminal
case.”) (unpublished decision). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot proceed against Defendant Johnson.
The only remaining claim is time-barred. The applicable statute of limitations for § 1983
actions in Illinois is two years. See Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir. 2013). A
claim under § 1983 accrues—that is, the clock starts running—when “the plaintiff knows or
should know that his or her constitutional rights have been violated.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d
667, 672 (7th Cir. 2006). In making the determination of when the claim has accrued, a court
must first identify the injury, and, then, determine when a plaintiff could have filed suit. Id.
Plaintiff alleges he “was detained without a cause of action” in April 2009. The Court
interprets these allegations as a claim that Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Manuel v. City of Joliet, --- S. Ct. ---, 2017 WL
1050976, at *5 (2017) (Fourth Amendment establishes the minimum constitutional standards and
procedures for arrest and ensuing detention). “When a person’s Fourth Amendment rights have
been violated by a false arrest, the injury occurs at the time of arrest.” Wallace v. City of
Chicago, 440 F.3d 421, 425 (7th Cir. 2006). Thus, Plaintiff’s false arrest claim accrued at that
time. Dominguez v. Hendley, 545 F.3d 585, 589 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff waited more than
seven (7) years to initiate this lawsuit, and, therefore, his claims are barred by the statute of
limitations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's 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 amendment to the Complaint
Page 3 of 4
would be futile. This case is therefore terminated. All pending motions are
denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 58.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.
Entered this 31st day of March, 2017.
s/Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
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?