Boron v. Smith et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/15/2013: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is granted. The court authorizes the trust fund officer at Plaintiff's place of confinement to make d eductions from Plaintiff's trust fund account in accordance with this order. The clerk shall send a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at Taylorville Correctional Center. The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which this court can grant relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff's motion for the assistance of counsel 4 is denied. Mailed notice. [For further details see written opinion.](ea, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Virginia M. Kendall

CASE NUMBER

13 C 2259

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

April 15, 2013

Paul Anthony Boron (R-67726) vs. John Smith, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is granted. The court authorizes the trust fund officer
at Plaintiff’s place of confinement to make deductions from Plaintiff’s trust fund account in accordance with this
order. The clerk shall send a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at Taylorville Correctional Center. The
complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which this court can grant relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff’s motion for the assistance of counsel [4] is denied.
O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Paul Anthony Boron, a Taylorville Correctional Center inmate, has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
civil rights action in this court. He alleges that, in 2002, he was arrested by Poson, Illinois police officers for
burglary. An intake officer, John Smith, mistakenly entered incorrect information in state and federal databases
indicating that Plaintiff had been arrested for murder. Plaintiff states that his character was defamed and he was
unable to obtain a job due to the mistake.
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application demonstrates that he is unable to prepay the filing fee. The
court grants his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assesses an initial filing fee of $14.00. The
inmate trust account officer at Plaintiff’s place of confinement is authorized and ordered to collect, when funds
exist, the partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust fund account and pay it directly to the clerk of court. After
payment of the initial partial filing fee, the trust fund officer is directed to collect monthly payments from
Plaintiff’s account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the account.
Monthly collected payments shall be forwarded to the clerk of court each time the amount in the account
exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District
Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier’s Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly identify
Plaintiff’s name and the case number of this case. Plaintiff shall remain responsible for the filing fee obligation,
and Taylorville officials shall notify transferee authorities of any outstanding balance in the event Plaintiff is
transferred to another facility.
Although Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis, his complaint cannot proceed in this court. Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this court must review every complaint filed by an inmate and dismiss the complaint if it
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary damages
against a party immune from such damages. In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the complaint may be
untimely, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim for this court. Though he has filed a federal civil rights
suit, he alleges only state law claims.
13C2259 Paul Anthony Boron (R-67726) vs. John Smith, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting under color of state law.
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). To establish a constitutional violation, a plaintiff must allege
facts indicating that the officer acted with deliberate indifference, i.e., that the officer actually knew of and
deliberately disregarded a risk of injury to the plaintiff. Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 2000),
citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Neither negligence nor gross negligence is sufficient.
Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1013 (7th Cir. 2006). In this case, Plaintiff describes only inadvertent
acts by the intake officer. While negligence may support a claim in state court, it does not give rise to a
federal cause of action.
Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegations of defamation at most assert only a state-law claim. Paul v. Davis,
424 U.S. 693 (1976). Slander and defamation are not actionable as constitutional claims, even when
committed by a state actor. Id. at 702 (“the weight of our decisions establishes no constitutional doctrine
converting every defamation by a public official into a deprivation of liberty”). Plaintiff’s defamation claim
against the intake officer states no § 1983 claim. Id.; see also Hernandez v. Joliet Police Dept., 197 F.3d 256,
262 (7th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, the court dismisses this case. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff raising his
claims in state court, if he is able to do so. The case in this court, however, is closed.

13C2259 Paul Anthony Boron (R-67726) vs. John Smith, et al.

Page 2 of 2