The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, District Judge:
Campbell, a state prisoner, has submitted a complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that the Defendants—various law
enforcement and correctional officials—violated his constitutional
rights by denying him due process.
Plaintiff's petition for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs
and fees is denied and the complaint is dismissed.
It is well established that pro se complaints are to be liberally
construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652
(1972), reh'g denied, 405 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct. 963, 30 L.Ed.2d 819 (1972).
"[A] district court judge should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis
if an action is frivolous or malicious." Wartman v. Branch 7, Civil
Division, County Court, Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin, 510 F.2d 130,
134 (7th Cir. 1975), principle reaffirmed in Bryan v. Johnson,
821 F.2d 455, 458 (7th Cir. 1987). A frivolous complaint is one in which
"the petitioner can make no rational argument in law or facts to support
his or her claim for relief." Williams v. Faulkner, 837 F.2d 304, 306
(7th Cir. 1988), aff'd sub nom. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109
S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Because the Plaintiff has indicated
that he is indigent, the Court will review the Plaintiff's claims to
determine whether they state a colorable cause of action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Plaintiff alleges the following facts: In or around March 1989,
Campbell was discharged from prison and delivered to the Will County
Sheriff's Department to face criminal charges, evidently pursuant to a
writ or detainer of some kind. He posted bond and was mistakenly released
from custody rather than returned to prison. He returned to his home in
Springfield, where he resided for approximately nineteen months.
On or about October 19, 1990, the Plaintiff was informed that the
Springfield police were looking for him. He telephoned the police
station, and an unknown officer informed the Plaintiff that he was not
aware of a warrant for the Plaintiff's arrest. He told the Plaintiff he
was sending a police officer allegedly just "to talk to" the Plaintiff;
however, two squad cars arrived at the scene shortly thereafter and
handcuffed the Plaintiff.
The officers, Defendants Swetland, Dowis and Kincaid, did not announce
they were arresting the Plaintiff, did not read him his rights, and
admitted that they neither had a warrant for the Plaintiff's arrest nor
knew of any charges against him. They told the Plaintiff he would find
out what the problem was when they reached the police station. Although
the Plaintiff then decided that he did not want to go to the police
station, he felt forced to accompany the officers.
Later that day, an unknown sheriff released the Plaintiff to the
custody of two unknown I.D.O.C. correctional officers. The Plaintiff was
transported to the Menard Correctional Center, although there was no
warrant or court order authorizing the Plaintiff's detention. Defendant
Welborn, the warden of the Menard Correctional Center, received the
Plaintiff into custody without mittimus papers or any other appropriate
On or about October 23, 1990, the Plaintiff received a copy of his
sentence calculation worksheet. The Plaintiff was not credited for the
time he had spent out on bond. The Plaintiff later talked to his
counselor, who promised that the time the Plaintiff had spent "on the
street" would be credited toward his release date because the Plaintiff
was not at fault for the mistaken early release. On December 12, 1990,
the Plaintiff was transferred to the medium security unit at the Logan
Correctional Center pursuant to administrative authorization.
On January 11, 1991, Defendant Caraway, a Menard correctional officer,
issued the Plaintiff a disciplinary report charging him with escape. The
report, prepared after an internal investigation, accused the Plaintiff
of accepting release from the Will County Jail, "knowing that he still
had time remaining to serve with the D.O.C." The Plaintiff appeared
before the Adjustment Committee, where his requests for witnesses and for
a continuance were denied. The Adjustment Committee found the Plaintiff
guilty of escape and imposed the maximum sentence; however, later that
day, Defendant Smith, a committee member, informed the Plaintiff that the
committee had reversed its decision and recommended further
investigation. The Plaintiff signed a document which he thought
authorized a continuance, but which actually turned out to be a
"disciplinary" transfer form.
The next day, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Pontiac Correctional
Center, a maximum security prison. Defendants Bosses, McGinnis and
Jockisch approved the transfer. There the Plaintiff received ...