Padilla v. Baker et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 5/23/2012: Motion by plaintiff for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 and motion for appointment of counsel 4 are denied. Civil Case Terminated. (For further details see written opinion.) (ma,)

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

12 C 3693

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

5/23/2012

Martin Padilla vs. David Baker, et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Motion by plaintiff for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] and motion for appointment of
counsel [4] are denied. Civil Case Terminated.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Martin Padilla’s (Padilla) motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),
“[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. . . .” Id. Since Padilla is proceeding pro se, the court has
liberally construed his complaint. Padilla contends that he was incarcerated, and that at his
place of incarceration (Prison), he was given an incident report relating to attempts by him to
mail certain items from the Prison (Incident Report). Padilla also contends that he requested
that the Incident Report be reviewed, and that during the review process, he was denied certain
privileges such as the use of email and the telephone, and visitation privileges. Padilla asserts
that he appealed the Incident Report, and that the Incident Report was ultimately expunged.
Padilla contends, however, that he did not receive notice of the expungement until after he was
12C3693 Martin Padilla vs. David Baker, et al

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT

released from the Prison, when he was residing in a halfway house. Padilla asserts that he was
harmed because during the period when his privileges were suspended, his family was worried
about him, he was worried about his family, and they were not able to communicate with each
other. The court notes, however, that even if Padilla’s allegations are true, he does not indicate
that he and his family would have been unable to communicate via standard mail. Padilla has
not stated any valid claim for relief. His own allegations show that he was accorded an
administrative process by which he could seek a review of the Incident Report, and that the
Prison ultimately expunged the Incident Report. Although Padilla alleges that the Incident
Report was ultimately expunged, Padilla’s allegations do not plausibly suggest that any of his
constitutional rights were violated by the issuance of the Incident Report or by the subsequent
appeal process. Nor do the allegations that, during the appeals process, Padilla was denied
certain privileges plausibly suggest a constitutional violation. Padilla’s allegations fail to state
any valid federal basis for relief. Based on the above, the instant action is dismissed. The
motion for an appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

12C3693 Martin Padilla vs. David Baker, et al

Page 2 of 2