Winston v. McCoy et al

Filing 21

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 8/14/2017. See written Order. The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. All pending motions 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 are MOOT. This case is closed.(LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 14 August, 2017 02:52:53 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANDRE WINSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MS. McCOY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17-CV-4159

MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a civil detainee at the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Facility (“Rushville”) is requesting leave to proceed
under a reduced payment procedure for indigent plaintiffs who are
institutionalized but are not prisoners as defined in 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(h).
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 Circ. 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 action.
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as
true, liberally construing them in the 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)(citation omitted). The court has reviewed the complaint and has also
held a merit review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a chance to personally
explain his claims to the court.
In his complaint, plaintiff makes several scattershot allegations that he
was found guilty of a disciplinary infraction based upon a false allegation that
he thrust his erect penis towards a female staff member while stating, “look at
these cookies!”, that he has suffered harm as a result of having to share a room
with another resident, and vaguely that he may have been denied medical

treatment. Plaintiff stated in open court that the basis of his lawsuit was in
regard to the disciplinary proceeding based upon the false allegation.
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for federal relief. Additionally,
plaintiff cannot bring unrelated claims against different defendants in the same
lawsuit. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated
claims against different defendants belong in different suits.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

The plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section
1915A. All pending motions [6, 7, 8, 9, 11] are MOOT. This case
is closed.

2.

If the plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may 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 the plaintiff plans to present on appeal.
See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the plaintiff does choose to
appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective
of the outcome of the appeal.

Entered this 14TH day of August, 2017
/s/Harold A. Baker
____________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE