Jones v. Grounds

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice, and a strike is assessed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 10/29/2013. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LOUIS T. JONES, JR., II, # N97972,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
RANDY GROUNDS,
Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-01015-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Louis T. Jones, Jr., II, an inmate in Robinson Correctional Center, brings
this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in
connection with his continued incarceration, for which he seeks $10,000,000 in damages from
Warden Randy Ground.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening.– The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in
any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.– On review, the court shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the
complaint, if the complaint–
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

Page 1 of 3

Discussion
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Jones was slated for release from prison on
February 14, 2013, but the Prison Review Board found that he had violated parole. Plaintiff
asserts that he is serving two sentences for the same offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The complaint further asserts that Plaintiff was granted a writ
of habeas corpus in 2007 and should have been immediately released.
The complaint provides virtually no information regarding the relevant criminal
convictions, habeas or other post-conviction ruling, or the parole decision. However, the docket
sheets attached to the complaint do not support Plaintiff’s assertion that he was granted
immediate release. The Court further notes that in Jones v. Dexheimer, Case No. 10-cv-3202
(C.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2011), Jones’ petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied. In that
decision, it was noted that Jones appears not to understand the procedural history of his criminal
case(s), in that he was not granted any post-conviction relief; his 2007 petition was denied.
Furthermore, a notation on the documents Jones submitted with the present Section 1983
complaint states, “I been to court 3 times. They still have not gave me no relief.” [sic] (Doc. 1-1,
p. 5).
A Section 1983 claim cannot stand where a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
necessarily would imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s conviction or sentence, except if the
prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994); Miller v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 75 F.3d 330, 331 (7th
Cir.1996).

Clearly, finding for Plaintiff and against Warden Grounds for holding Plaintiff

beyond his release date would imply the validity of Plaintiff’s sentence(s) and/or conviction(s).

Page 2 of 3

Therefore, this action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Dismissal of this action shall be without prejudice.
Although dismissal is without prejudice, a “strike” will be assessed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). Not only has Plaintiff Jones failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, this action is malicious—intended to harass. Another of Plaintiff’s Section 1983 actions
was recently dismissed because it was barred under Heck: Jones v. Beggs, Case No. 13-cv-2104
(C.D. Ill. May 10, 2013) (brought against the arresting officer). Yet, four months later Plaintiff
filed this action. As in Jones v. Beggs, a strike will be assessed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
because of the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See also Davis v.
Kansas Dep’t of Corrections, 507 F.3d 1246, 1249 (10th Cir. 2007) (dismissal based on Heck for
failure to state a claim warrants a strike). An inference of “malice” (an independent ground for
calling a strike) can also be drawn from a plaintiff’s repeated filings, indicating an intent to
harass. See Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2011).
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated, this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice, and a strike is assessed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The
Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 29, 2013

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3