Chavez v. State of Illinois et al
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 11/30/2017. 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. This case is closed. (LN, ilcd)
Thursday, 30 November, 2017 11:16:35 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated in
Hill Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The case is now before the court for a merit review of
plaintiff’s claims. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to
“screen” the plaintiff’s complaint, and through such process to
identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire
action if warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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. However,
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that Defendant Dorethy, the warden, has denied him
visitation with his wife and daughter.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to unfettered
visitation. Kentucky Dep’t of Corrs. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454
(1989). Therefore, plaintiff=s complaint fails to state a claim for
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
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. This case is closed.
The plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350
even though his case has been dismissed. The agency having
custody of the plaintiff shall continue to make monthly
payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's
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 30th day of November, 2017
/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?