Campbell v. State Of Illinois et al

Filing 10

WRITTEN Opinion: Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [#9] is denied. By order of 6/6/2011, Plaintiff was given an opportunity to submit a properly completed and certified application to proceed in forma pauperis, and an acceptable co mplaint. Plaintiffs amended complaint is not acceptable, and it is now clear that Plaintiffs allegations fail to state a claim. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and for lack of jurisdiction. The case is dismissed without prejudice to pursuing his claims in state court. The case in this Court is closed. Signed by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 6/22/2011.Mailed notice(vcf, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Elaine E. Bucklo

CASE NUMBER

11 C 2295

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/22/11

David Campbell (#2009-1122169) v. State of Illinois, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [#9] is denied. By order of 6/6/2011, Plaintiff was given an opportunity
to submit a properly completed and certified application to proceed in forma pauperis, and an acceptable complaint.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is not acceptable, and it is now clear that Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim.
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and for lack of jurisdiction. The case is dismissed
without prejudice to pursuing his claims in state court. The case in this Court is closed.

O [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
violations of his rights. His amended complaint is unacceptable as it is incomprehensible, and largely contains
statements of the law, rather than factual allegations as to how Plaintiff believes his rights were violated.
However, on further review of Plaintiff’s original complaint, in conjunction with the statements he makes in his
amended complaint regarding preliminary hearings, indictments, and prosecutions of felonies, it appears clear
that Plaintiff is challenging his ongoing state criminal prosecution, which is not permitted in federal court.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss a suit brought by a prisoner at any time
if the Court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Here, even accepting Plaintiff’s
factual allegations as true, the Court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim as a matter of law.
Initially, Plaintiff’s it appears from Plaintiff’s complaint that his state criminal proceedings are still
ongoing. The “unconstitutional conduct” alleged by Plaintiff may be litigated in state court and may be further
litigated either on his direct appeal or in other collateral state proceedings. A federal court may not interfere with
state criminal proceedings, and abstention is appropriate when a plaintiff invokes federal jurisdiction for the
purpose of restraining or otherwise interfering with state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
at 53; Douglas v City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 (1943); Simpson v. Rowan, 73 F.3d 134, 138-9 (7th Cir. 1995).
Even if his state court criminal proceedings were complete, any relief to which Plaintiff might be entitled would
be through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and not a § 1983 action. (assuming he can meet the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254). See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994); see also Whitlock v.
Johnson, 153 F3d 380, 389 (7th Cir. 1998). The Court is not permitted to “convert” the civil rights action into
a habeas corpus suit and decide the case on its merits. Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497,500 (7th Cir. 1999).
Rather, “[i]t should simply be dismissed, leaving to the prisoner to decide whether to refile it as a petition for
habeas corpus.” Id. In short, once Plaintiff’s state court criminal proceedings have been completed, and he has
exhausted his direct appeals and collateral proceedings, he still would not be entitled to relief under§ 1983, he
would need to seek relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(CONTINUED)
AWL

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT (continued)
Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim appears to be one for malicious prosecution. Malicious prosecution is not
actionable in federal court. Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750-51 (7th Cir. 2001). While Plaintiff may not
pursue his claim for malicious prosecution in federal court, he may, should he choose (and there is no other matter
barring it) bring his malicious prosecution claim in state court. Id.
Further, Plaintiff is suing Defendants which are not suable entities or who are immune from suit. First,
Plaintiff names the State of Illinois as a Defendant. In Pennhurst v. Haldeman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-101 (1984), the
Supreme Court held that an unconsenting state cannot be sued in federal court. The Court further held that it makes
no difference whether the plaintiff seeks damages or injunctive relief. Id. at 102. While there is an exception for
cases seeking prospective injunctive relief (see Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)), the exception is inapplicable
to the allegations or relief sought in this case.
As it appears that Plaintiff has brought his claims in the wrong court, the Court is denying his i.f.p.
application. Dismissal of this action is without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing his claims, should he choose to do
so, in state court.

Page 2 of 2