Roberts v. Morris et al
Filing
9
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 2/2/2018. 1)Plaintiff's Motion to Ask for Fee Extend and Restraining Order 7 and Motion 8 are denied. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, he has not shown a reas onable likelihood of success on the merits, and the Court lacks authority to grant injunctive relief absent a relationship between the pleadings and the relief sought in the motion. See Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Ctr., 81 0 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). 2) Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is denied. 3) The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, and for failure to pay the initial filing fee as directed by the Court. This case is closed. All pending motions not addressed above are deemed MOOT. 4) If the plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a n otice 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. (LN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 02 February, 2018 04:29:14 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ARNOLD ROBERTS,
v.
MS. MORRIS,
et al.
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
17-4217
MERIT REVIEW 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).
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that Rushville officials failed
to return several items of personal property following his return to
the facility from the Illinois Department of Corrections. According
to Plaintiff, Rushville officials told him they have no record of his
belongings. Plaintiff also alleges that Rushville officials have
refused to allow him to share a room with a resident of his
choosing, and that his health issues are being overlooked because
of laziness.
The confiscation or destruction of personal property does not
violate due process where state law provides a meaningful postdeprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984).
Plaintiff has an adequate remedy available to him in the Illinois
Court of Claims. See Stewart v. McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031, 1036 (7th
Cir. 1993). Rushville officials also have no constitutional duty to
provide Plaintiff with the ability to choose his own roommate; they
must only take reasonable steps to avoid subjecting a resident to a
known risk of harm. Gevas v. McLaughlin, 798 F.3d 475, 480 (7th
Cir. 2015). Plaintiff does not present any information regarding his
medical conditions. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to
state a constitutional claim.
Finally, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial filing fee of
$31.55. Plaintiff was granted an additional 30 days to pay the filing
fee and warned that failure to pay the filing fee would result in
dismissal of this case. See Text Order entered September 27, 2017.
Plaintiff has failed to pay the initial filing fee. Although Plaintiff
filed a second motion to waive the filing fee, he had a balance of
approximately $200.00 in his trust fund account at the time he
filed this lawsuit. Plaintiff’s claims will accordingly be dismissed
without prejudice.
It is therefore ordered:
1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Ask for Fee Extend and Restraining Order
(#7) and Motion (#8) are denied. To the extent that Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief, he has not shown a reasonable
likelihood of success on the merits, and the Court lacks
authority to grant injunctive relief absent a relationship
between the pleadings and the relief sought in the motion. See
Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Ctr., 810
F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015).
2) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (#2) is
denied.
3) The plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6)
and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, and for failure to pay the initial
filing fee as directed by the Court. This case is closed. All
pending motions not addressed above are deemed MOOT.
4) 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 2nd day of February, 2018
/s/Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?