Crowe v. Third Judicial Curcuit Court

Filing 7

ORDER Dismissing Complaint, with Leave to Amend; Amended Pleading due by 3/7/2016. Defendant Third Judicial Curcuit Court (Madison County, IL) terminated. See Order for details.Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 2/12/2016. (mmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID A. CROWE
Plaintiff,
vs.
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT,
MADISON COUNTY, Ill.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-00045-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge:
Plaintiff David A. Crowe is a pretrial detainee housed in the Madison County Jail. He
brings this action Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 26712680, seeking monetary damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish and mental distress,
stemming from the Madison County, Illinois, Circuit Court’s denial of his motion for a
compassionate furlough to attend his mother’s funeral. Crowe notes that two weeks after his
request was denied, a similarly situated detainee was furloughed to visit his father in the
hospital.1 Crowe also seeks damages for clothing and personal effects that have been lost.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court is required to dismiss any portion of the complaint that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money
damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
1

Plaintiff submits a news article captioned, “Man failed to return from furlough, faces meth charges” –hardly an
endorsement for furloughs (see Doc. 1, p. 7). Whether the judge involved with Plaintiff Crowe is the same judge
who granted the furlough is unknown. In any event, the man who was released by Madison County Circuit Judge
Richard Tognarelli never visited his father in the hospital as planned; rather, he returned to his home and
commenced manufacturing methamphetamine with his own son. When a disagreement erupted between the father
and son over how to properly make methamphetamine, the police were called and the fugitive was arrested.
Page 1 of 3

Discussion
Plaintiff specifically brings this action pursuant to the FTCA.

The FTCA, however,

provides jurisdiction for suits against the United States regarding torts committed by federal
officials, not state and county officials. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims do not fall within the
jurisdiction of the FTCA. The FTCA claim will be dismissed with prejudice.
Without a viable FTCA claim, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction. As a result, there
is no basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims for emotional
distress, or Plaintiff’s claim regarding the loss of his clothing and personal effects. See 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a). Furthermore, relative to the personal property claim, the Seventh Circuit has
found that Illinois provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy in an action for damages in the
Illinois Court of Claims. See Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2013); Murdock v.
Washington, 193 F.3d 510, 513 (7th Cir. 1999). Any and all state law claims will be dismissed
without prejudice.
Although the complaint does not readily suggest another viable federal claim, a brief
period of time will be allotted for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Federal Tort Claims
Act (“FTCA”) claim is DISMISSED with prejudice; his claims seeking monetary damages for
pain and suffering and other emotional distress, and for the loss of his clothing and personal
effects, are DISMISSED without prejudice; consequently, the complaint and Defendant “Third
Judicial Circuit Court” are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Page 2 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have through March 7, 2016, to file an
amended complaint. If no amended pleading is filed, the case will be closed and final judgment
will be entered.
Although final judgment has not been entered yet, Plaintiff is ADVISED that if he
wishes to appeal this dismissal, his notice of appeal must be filed with this Court within thirty
days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). A motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See FED. R. APP. P.
24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing
fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Moreover, if the appeal is found to be non-meritorious, Plaintiff may also incur a “strike.” A
proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30day appeal deadline. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than
twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be
extended.
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that as long as this action is pending he is under a
continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any
change in his address; the Court will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall
be done in writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs.
Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and
may result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 12, 2016
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3