Houston v. Rushville Post Office et al
Filing
6
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Sara Darrow on 7/20/2018. Plantiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 3 is DENIED. This case is dismissed. All pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is closed. Clerk is dir ected to enter judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. 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 for ma 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 $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.(LN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 20 July, 2018 09:12:28 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
MICHAEL HOUSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUSHVILLE POST OFFICE, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
18-4114
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently civilly committed at Rushville Treatment and
Detention Facility (“TDF”), filed the present action alleging that government officials unlawfully
rerouted a package sent to him via the United States Postal Service. Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3). The motion is denied.
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, fails to state a
claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, 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
Page 1 of 4
Astate 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 he never received a care package containing
approximately $450.00 in food and other merchandise that his family sent to him at the facility.
Plaintiff alleges that the items had been previously approved by TDF security staff. Plaintiff
alleges that, upon inquiry through the TDF grievance process, he “was informed that someone
had [his] package turned around and [sent] to a post office somewhere in Chicago, Illinois.”
(Doc. 1 at 6). Plaintiff alleges that the post office in Rushville, Illinois did not respond to his
requests for information, and that the “post office general” confirmed his package was
somewhere in Chicago. Plaintiff alleges that he did not authorize anyone to send his package to
Chicago, and that he does not “know who had my package [sent] to Chicago, Illinois or why.”
Id. Plaintiff sued the United States Postal Service, the Rushville Post Office, and three federal
government officials.
“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies
from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Although the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), generally waives sovereign immunity for negligent acts
committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, any waiver therein
provided is inapplicable to “any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent
transmission of letters or other postal matter.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b); see also Dolan v. U.S.
Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481 (2006). Plaintiff’s claim based upon the non-delivery of his
package falls squarely into the types of claims to which sovereign immunity has not been
waived.
Page 2 of 4
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), he runs into other
problems. Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that the deprivation of property he suffered was the
result of an intentional, but unauthorized, act of an unidentified government official. In other
words, the diversion of Plaintiff’s package was not mandated by an established TDF or other
governmental policy—the culprit acted on his own volition. In this scenario, the deprivation
Plaintiff alleges does not violate the constitution where state law provides a meaningful postdeprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984). The Illinois Court of Claims
provides such a remedy. See Stewart v. McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031, 1036 (7th Cir. 1993). In
addition, Plaintiff cannot sue an individual under these provisions merely because the individuals
held supervisory positions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (no vicarious liability
under § 1983).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the officials Plaintiff seeks to sue are immune from suit
and that he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Any amendment to the
complaint would be futile.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plantiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [3] is DENIED.
2) This case is dismissed. All pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is
closed. Clerk is directed to enter judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
3) 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
Page 3 of 4
appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome
of the appeal.
Entered this 20th day of July, 2018.
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?