Everett v. Powers et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: The Court DENIES Mr. Everetts motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3), DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) with prejudice because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim, and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff's motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 4), motion for service of process at government expense (Doc. 5), and motion under summary of the law supporting memorandum (Doc. 7) are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/17/2016. (dsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES M. EVERETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 16-cv-00506-DRH-PMF

VO POWERS,
IMANI BROWN, and
JEAN STRAZA
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

On May 6, 2016, Charles M. Everett, pro se, filed the above captioned
action in this District Court using a form designated “Pro Se Civil Rights
Complaint (Non–Prisoner)” and listing three defendants: (1) Vo Powers (Chestnut
Psychiatrist); (2) Imani Brown (Collinsville Housing Case Manager); and Jean
Straza (Chestnut Psychiatrist). The form further states “[s]ubject matter
jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), and/or 42
U.S.C. § 1983” and directs the filer to identify any additional bases for federal
subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Everett identifies the following as additional bases
for federal subject matter jurisdiction:
42 U.S.C. Chapt. 21 A Privacy Protection 42 U.S. Code Chapter 7,
and or Privacy protection act of 1980. Title I First Amendment Priacy

Protection (1)(2)(3)(4), and Title II Attorney General Guidelines
(1)(2)(3)(4)
Along with the complaint, Mr. Everett filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 3), a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 4), and a
motion for service of process at government expense (Doc. 5). Shortly after filing
the complaint, Mr. Everett filed an additional document captioned “Motion Under
Summary of the law Supporting Memorandum (Powers et al) C-Major
Psychologist Construct” (Doc. 7). Finally, on May 17, 2016, Mr. Everett filed a
second motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 10).
This case comes now before the Court for threshold review 1 and on Mr.
Everett’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). After carefully
reviewing the complaint in the present case, the Court concludes that Mr. Everett
is not entitled to relief and the complaint must be dismissed.
A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without
prepayment of fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a
qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a case if the
action is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim or is a claim for
money damages against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The test
for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff

1

See Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 781 (7th Cir.1999) (court's power to dismiss a case sua
sponte “at any time” for failure to state a claim extends to all suits, brought by prisoners and nonprisoners alike, paid and unpaid).

can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247
(7th Cir. 1983). An action fails to state a claim if it does not plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross “the line
between possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. When assessing a petition to
proceed IFP, a district court should inquire into the merits of the petitioner's
claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny leave to proceed
IFP. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982).
The Court is satisfied from Mr. Everett’s affidavit that he is indigent.
However, after reviewing the complaint, the Court is unable to detect a nonfrivolous cause of action.
Mr. Everett’s Statement of Claim, begins on page 5 of Doc. 2. After careful
review, the Court is unable to locate a rational argument on the law or facts in
support of any claim. In fact, the Court is unable to discern exactly what claim or
claims Mr. Everett is asserting. This is because the Court finds Mr. Everett’s
pleading to be unintelligible and incoherent. As an example, the Court has
transcribed the following, taken from the first page of Mr. Everett’s Statement of
Claim:
4/16/2016, at Chestnut (med plus) by use of obtained by
electronically or and paper stored – protected health information – of
a Gilbert B. Croom (adopted uncle) and whereas by a deficiency in
vitamin – C causing SCURVY in Gilbert B. Croom also obtained by

electronically and or paper stored – protected health information of
Complaintant [sic] accidently stepping on a bottle stuck in a trench
with no socks and house shoes in 1983, and a broken ankle in 1978,
whereas Lellee M. Everett (Croom) pre-preparing the E.R. procedure
at St. Mary’s Hospital whereas by electronically and or paper stored,
to the knowledge of Dr. Sumer, Dr. Dennis, (police) C. Childress, and
PHD. Bernice L. Collins whereas by creating a misdiagnosis, and
treatment of Complaintant [sic] whereas by a re-evaluation of
Complaintant [sic] by a Dr. Sumer whereas by Dr. Sumer
intentionally in the re-evaluation not using diagnosis and treatment
by Complaintant’s [sic] psychiatrist Dr. Chiganta of Southpoints
Hospital, but Dr. Sumer telephoning Dr. Dennis at St. Mary’s
whereas by Dr. Sumers use of initial hospitalization in 1987 retiring
whereas by obtaining electronically or paper stored protected health
information of Gilbert B. Croom’s disease SCURVY caused by a
deficiency in vitamin-C also obtained electronically on paper storedprotected health information ….
(Doc. 2, p. 5). The remainder of Mr. Everett’s pleading is equally unintelligible
and incoherent. 2
Filings that are incoherent or lack a legal basis are frivolous. Georgakis v.
Ill. State Univ., 722 F.3d 1075, 1078 (7th Cir. 2013); Buntrock v. SEC, 347 F.3d
995, 997 (7th Cir. 2003). Mr. Everett’s pleadings in the instant case are
incoherent and the Court is unable to discern any facts suggesting that his civil
rights were violated.
For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Everett’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3), DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) with prejudice because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim,
and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff's motion
for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 4), motion for service of process at government
2

Mr. Everett’s Motion Under Summary of the law Supporting Memorandum (Powers et al) CMajor Psychologist Construct (Doc. 7) is also incomprehensible.

expense (Doc. 5), and motion under summary of the law supporting
memorandum (Doc. 7) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 17th day of May, 2016.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2016.05.17
14:31:11 -05'00'
United States District Court