Mancell v. Kunkle et al

Filing 10

MERIT REVIEW ORDER #2 entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 11/17/2020. It is therefore ordered: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 8 is granted. Clerk is directed to docket the amended complaint attached to Plaint iff's motion. 2. Plaintiff's Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis 5 is denied. 3. Plaintiff's motion 9 is denied as duplicative. The motion appears to be a copy of Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint. 4. Plaintiff' ;s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any amendment to the Complaint would be futile. This case is therefore terminated. All pending motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. 5. 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 appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd) (Main Document 10 replaced on 11/17/2020) (SAG, ilcd).

4:20-cv-04174-SLD # 10

Page 1 of 3

E-FILED

Tuesday, 17 November, 2020 10:59:15 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Michael J. Mancell,
Plaintiff,
v.
Eric Kunkel, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

20-4174

Merit Review Order #2
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. (Doc. 7). The Court permitted Plaintiff an opportunity to
amend his complaint to provide any additional information he
wished the Court to consider. The matter is before the Court for
ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.
(Doc. 8).
In reviewing the amended 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 amended complaint that Defendant
Durant attempted to question his regarding a crime that she
believed he had committed without permitting Plaintiff to speak with
his lawyer. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Durant informed him of
the allegations after Plaintiff requested to speak with his lawyer and

4:20-cv-04174-SLD # 10

Page 2 of 3

threatened to send Plaintiff to more restrictive confinement if he did
not comply. Plaintiff was permitted to return to his housing pod
after this incident.
Plaintiff alleges that TDF officials later placed him in
segregative confinement pending an investigation. Plaintiff alleges he
did not have access to his property during this time, that he was
later provided a hearing re: the confinement, and that he was later
provided his religious material. Plaintiff alleges that the confinement
exacerbated his mental illness, that he fears he may be accused of
criminal acts in the future, and that “a source who shall remain
anonymous and should be held in high regards” told him that “they
are coming back” for him. Plaintiff does not allege that he requested,
or was denied access to, mental health services.
For the reasons stated in the Court’s previous merit review
order, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a constitutional
claim. Plaintiff does not allege that he made coerced statements that
were later used against him in a criminal proceeding, he does not
allege facts sufficient to permit a plausible inference that he suffered
an “atypical and significant” deprivation that would implicate due
process concerns, and TDF officials were permitted to place him in
temporary segregative confinement pending investigation of criminal
activity. Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 767 (2003); Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485-86 (1995); Holly v. Woolfolk, 415 F.3d
678, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2005).
It is therefore ordered:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint [8] is granted. Clerk is directed to docket the
amended complaint attached to Plaintiff’s motion.

2.

Plaintiff’s Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis [5] is
denied.

3.

Plaintiff’s motion [9] is denied as duplicative. The motion
appears to be a copy of Plaintiff’s proposed amended
complaint.

4:20-cv-04174-SLD # 10

Page 3 of 3

4.

Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Any amendment to the Complaint would be
futile. This case is therefore terminated. All pending
motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to
enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

5.

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 appeal, he
will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee
irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.

Entered this 17th day of November, 2020.
s/ Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE