The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bauer, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause comes on the defendants' motion to dismiss the
instant complaint. The plaintiff is presently incarcerated in the
Illinois State Penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois. He has filed
suit under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, and
bases jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). The facts which form
the basis of the instant complaint arise out of the case of Bach
v. Bensinger, 72 C. 2284, which was previously before this Court.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants in Bensinger were
served with copies of the complaint on September 19, 1972, and
that the plaintiff was mailed a copy of the defendants' motion to
dismiss on September 25, 1972. The plaintiff alleges the prompt
filing of the motion to dismiss by the Attorney General's Office
was due to prison officials' illegally photocopying his complaint
and sending it directly to the Attorney General. Secondly, the
plaintiff alleges that defendant Scott, through his assistant
defendant Zagel, filed a false and fraudulent motion to dismiss
which was granted by this Court and which, therefore, resulted in
the deprivation of his constitutional rights. The instant
complaint contains no other allegations other than these general
Plaintiff's claim that defendants received "illegally
photocopied" legal documents from prison officials apparently is
intended to establish a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
Such a cause of action is not supported by the complaint which
merely states a vague and conclusory allegation and makes no
showing of any overt acts which defendants engaged in. Dieu v.
Norton, 411 F.2d 761 (7th Cir. 1969). This is particularly true
when the complaint fails to state the defendants in fact
conspired with any one. Fletcher v. Hook, 446 F.2d 14 (3rd Cir.
Moreover, neither the allegation of the defendants' receipt of
the "illegally photocopied documents" nor the claim that they
filed a fraudulent motion to dismiss are sufficient to state a
cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nowhere in the complaint
does the plaintiff set forth the alleged misconduct which forms
the basis of this lawsuit. Such pleading cannot withstand a
motion to dismiss even where the plaintiff is a prison inmate.
See Wilson v. Post Conviction Hearing Act, 321 F. Supp. 1234
(W.D. Penn. 1971). In Henderson v. Pate, 409 F.2d 507 (7th Cir.
1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 233, 24 L.Ed.2d 191
the court determined that the mere conclusory allegation that a
prisoner had been denied medical attention and had experienced
physical mistreatment failed to state a cause of action under
1983. Similarly, in the case of Pusateri v. Johnston,
398 F.2d 327 (3rd Cir. 1968), a prisoner's complaint which claimed the
warden denied his access to the courts without stating any
factual allegation failed to state a cause of action under 1983.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) require the
complaint to contain a short and plain statement of the claim
showing the pleader is entitled to relief. The instant complaint
fails to make any specific allegations concerning either of the
defendants. On the basis of the case law cited supra in this
opinion, the Court must conclude that such a complaint fails to
state a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act. As a result,
we do not reach the issue of whether the defendants, as
prosecutors, are immune from suit in this instance.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion to dismiss is
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw ...