Harris v. Lawrence

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court DISCHARGES the order to show cause (Doc. 5)and GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send the plaintiff a sufficient number of blank summons forms and USM-285 forms along with this order. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/7/2024. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CAYLON HARRIS
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 23-cv-4006-JPG

LAWRENCE, St. Clair County Sheriff,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its January 12, 2024, order to show cause on or before
January 31, 2024, why the Court should not dismiss this case as duplicative of Harris v. Lawrence, 23cv-4005-JPG (Doc. 5). Both involve the conduct of a Sheriff’s deputy in detaining Harris after he
began video recording inside the St. Clair County Courthouse.
Harris has not responded to the order to show cause in this case. However, in Case No. 23-cv4005-JPG, he filed a motion to dismiss that case and to proceed with this case (No. 23-cv-4005-JPG,
Doc. 8). The Court dismissed No. 23-cv-4005-JPG, so now there is only one case—this case—
involving the relevant facts in this case. Because there are no longer multiple suits about the same
facts, the Court DISCHARGES the order to show cause (Doc. 5) and will proceed with this case.
Here, Harris seeks leave to file in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). A federal court may permit an
indigent party to proceed without pre-payment 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 or fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). The test for
determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff 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). When assessing a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, a district
court should inquire into the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous,
it should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir.
1982).
The Court is satisfied from Harris’s affidavit that he is indigent. The Court further finds that
the action is not clearly frivolous or malicious and does not fail to state a claim. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2).
The plaintiff having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must order
service of process by a United States Marshal or Deputy Marshal or other specially appointed person.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send the
plaintiff a sufficient number of blank summons forms and USM-285 forms along with this order.
If the plaintiff wishes the United States Marshals Service to serve process in this case, the
Court DIRECTS the plaintiff to provide to the United States Marshals Service the summons issued in
this case, the appropriately completed USM-285 forms and sufficient copies of the complaint for
service.
The Court further DIRECTS the United States Marshal, upon receipt of the aforementioned
documents from the plaintiff and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), to serve a copy
of summons, complaint and this order upon the defendants in any manner consistent with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4, as directed by the plaintiff. Costs of service shall be borne by the United States.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 7, 2024

s/ J. Phil Gilbert
_
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2