UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
March 24, 2009
WILLIAM WALLS, PLAINTIFF,
HONORABLE JUDGE DIANE D. CANON, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
The plaintiff resides in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The plaintiff pursues due process and equal protection challenges to the way Judge Canon is or has handled his commitment proceedings under the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act. Judges are immune from lawsuits based on actions taken in their judicial capacities. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227-29 (1988). Further, any challenges to the fairness of the proceeding must be made in those proceedings, followed by appeals to the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court. Lastly, if the plaintiff is challenging his detention, the claim cannot proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As far as federal court goes, these claims are only cognizable in a federal habeas action, if at all. See Lieberman v. Thomas, 505 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2007)(example of habeas action filed by detainee as sexually violent person).*fn1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) The plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied (d/e 2). All pending motions are denied as moot (d/e 3). This case is terminated.
2) If the plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues the plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C).
Entered this 24th Day of March, 2009.