Owens v. State IL et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 9/6/2011: Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of this Order to refile his Com plaint. Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel are incomplete, and are likewise denied. Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of this Order to refile his affidavit in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is instructed that he must fully answer all questions on those forms. (For further detail see Written Opinion). (et, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Harry D. Leinenweber

CASE NUMBER

11 C 6093

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

9/6/2011

Owens v. State of Illinois, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is
given 30 days from the date of this Order to refile his Complaint. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma
pauperis and for appointment of counsel are incomplete, and are likewise denied. Plaintiff is given 30 days
from the date of this Order to refile his affidavit in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his
motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is instructed that he must fully answer all questions on those
forms.
O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff, Joseph Owens, brought the instant civil rights lawsuit against the State of Illinois and the federal
government. He moves to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel.
Before ruling on these motions, the Court must screen his complaint to determine if the lawsuit is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff’s complaint is insufficient to pass muster.
Plaintiff has used the Court’s form complaint for civil rights violations, but it is incomplete and difficult to
read. Plaintiff references being held in segregation and being injured due to receiving the wrong medication,
but it is impossible to tell when and where Plaintiff was incarcerated or what exactly happened to him.
Plaintiff’s complaint need not be detailed, but as it stands it is insufficient to state a claim for relief.
Further, Owens does not name anyone personally involved in the alleged deprivation of his rights. In order to
obtain relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must show a violation of a right protected by the
Constitution or federal law that was caused by the conduct of a person acting under color of state law.
Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 356 (7th Cir. 1997). Neither the state nor the federal government is a
“person” subject to suit under § 1983, so neither is a proper defendant. See Tocholke v. Wisconsin, 413 Fed.
App’x 889, 890 (7th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, and he is given leave to amend his complaint
within 30 days of the date of this order. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis is incomplete. Plaintiff has skipped certain questions (including Question 2, dealing with his
employment) and has failed to answer others completely (including Question 4, which indicates that he
receives social security benefits, but does not specify in what amount). Additionally, he answered both “yes”
11C6093 Owens vs. State of Illinois

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
and “no” to Question 9, regarding whether he or anyone else living in his residence has personal property
worth more than $1,000. Finally, Plaintiff failed to sign the affidavit. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis, and gives him 30 days from the date of this Order to submit a complete
application.
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is similarly incomplete and confusing, and is likewise denied.
Plaintiff checked three boxes for Question 5, indicating that his highest educational level was either grammar
school, some high school, or college. Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of this Order to submit a
complete application. Further, Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not grant a motion for appointment of
counsel unless he shows that he has made some efforts to obtain counsel on his own.
Finally, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff may be having trouble understanding or completing these forms,
but it cannot provide him with any relief if he cannot clearly convey his complaint. Plaintiff is advised that
the Court has a Pro Se Assistance Program, and that appointments can be made either at the Clerk’s Office
Intake Desk, Dirksen Building, 219 S. Dearborn, 20th floor, or by calling [phone].

11C6093 Owens vs. State of Illinois

Page 2 of 2