Racanelli v. Scott et al

Filing 6

OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 10/5/17. IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 3 Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The case is closed. 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 MUST set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (FDS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 05 October, 2017 09:44:41 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSEPH RACANELLI,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGG SCOTT, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17-4110

OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and detained in the Rushville Treatment and
Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [3]
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 has
been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in
forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal claim.
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. 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).

Plaintiff has identified five Defendants including Director Gregg Scott, Assistant
Director Eric Kunkel, James Clayton, Jeremy Seymour, and James Dimas. Plaintiff also
lists an unspecified number of John Doe Defendants.
Plaintiff plead guilty to one count of Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse on July
14, 2006. Plaintiff was then incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections. On
an unspecified date, Plaintiff was transferred to the Rushville Treatment and Detention
Center as a civil detainee pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment
Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, et seq.
Plaintiff says he was only required to register as a sex offender for ten years.
Since Plaintiff pled guilty in 2006, he says the time period is up. Nonetheless, Plaintiff
says he is still registered as a sex offender. In addition, Plaintiff says his offense is listed
incorrectly as “Aggravated Sexual Abuse/Bodily Harm and Criminal Sexual
Assault/Force.” (Comp., p. 9). Plaintiff does not explain how any of the named
Defendants are responsible for his sex offender registration.
More important, Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) does not apply
when an individual is incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections or confined
to any other facility. See 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. 150/7.
Liability for registration terminates at the expiration of 10 years from the date of
conviction or adjudication if not confined to a penal institution, hospital or any
other institution or facility and if confined, at the expiration of 10 years from the date
of parole, discharge or release from any such facility, providing such person does not,
during that period, again become liable to register under the provisions of this
Article. Id.(emphasis added).
Therefore, the ten year period has not expired.

Plaintiff also appears to allege his conviction is not properly identified in the sex
offender registry. However, it appears the listing simply provides details about his
offense rather than add an additional offense. In addition, it is not clear how any
named Defendant is responsible for Plaintiff’s allegation, nor has Plaintiff clearly
articulated a constitutional violation. Therefore, his motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is denied [3] and his case is dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. [3] Plaintiff’s

complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
enter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The case is closed.
2.

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 MUST set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to
present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C).
Entered this 5th day of October, 2017.

s/ James E. Shadid
_________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE