Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Solis v. Lovell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 2, 2006

DARLENE SOLIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RAYMOND LOVELL, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

ORDER

This cause is before the court for a merit review of the plaintiff's claims. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to "screen" the plaintiff's complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it "(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."

28 U.S.C. §1915A.

The plaintiff, Darlene Solis, has filed her lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming that her constitutional rights were violated. She has named one defendant: Ray Lovell.

The Plaintiff's Succinct Complaint States

It took me 10 (unintelligible) just to get on the docket with the Prisoner Review Board, in the meantime I submitted several listings for my release, its suppose to be ready by the time the parole board releases me, but it wasn't until 11 more days after the official release date. (Comp., p.6)

The plaintiff is asking for compensation for the extra ten days she spend incarcerated.

It appears the plaintiff is claiming the defendant violated her due process rights when she was kept 11 days after her lawful release date. What is not clear from the plaintiff's complaint is what involvement the named defendant, Ray Lovell, had in her claims. An individual is only liable under §1983 only if he or she was "personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right." Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 739 (7th Cir. 2001), citing Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 652 (7th Cir. 2001); Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995).

Therefore, before the court can decide whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court needs more information from the plaintiff. The plaintiff must inform the court why she is suing Ray Lovell. Specifically, what is this defendant's job and what actions did he take or fail to take that lead to her late release? The plaintiff must provide this information to the court within 21 days.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

The plaintiff must provide the court with information stating what personal involvement the named defendant had with her claims. The plaintiff should state what Ray Lovell's official position is and what action he took or failed to take that lead to her late release. This information should be provided to the court within 21 days of this order.

Entered this 2nd day of March, 2006.

20060302

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.