IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
January 21, 2009
JAMES STATEN, PLAINTIFF,
ROBERT BETTS DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
On December 16, 2008, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 7) deferring its ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Service of Process at Government Expense (Doc. 6), as well as dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5). The Order also allowed him leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in an attempt to correct noted pleading deficiencies, as Plaintiff is acting pro se. Plaintiff has timely filed his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 8), which the Court now addresses.
Unlike his two previous Complaints, in his Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff only lists Robert Betts as a defendant. The body of his Second Amended Complaint states as follows: "The Plaintiff is bringing a suit against Mr. Betts for falsely having him arrested. The cause for the arrest would be that I (James) have filed numerous complaints against the Police Dept. that's why I guess I was arrested" (Doc. 8). Even if it were to combine these new allegations with the allegations from his prior two Complaints, which it cannot do, the Court does not find Plaintiff has explained the circumstances adequately enough to allow Mr. Betts to properly answer the Complaint. As previously noted by the Court, Plaintiff has failed to allege in sufficient detail that a lack of probable cause existed for his false arrest. Without such allegation, his claim fails as a matter of law. See Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 398 (7th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Further, the Court still cannot conclude from Plaintiff's claims against Mr. Betts would not be barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.
This is the third attempt Plaintiff has been given to correct the noted pleading deficiencies. He is still unable to do so and the Court believes it has allowed ample opportunity. It appears it would be an exercise in futility to continue to grant Plaintiff leave to amend and thus, the Court hereby DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims in this suit against all current and previously named Defendants. Thus, any and all remaining pending motions are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.