Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

McDowell v. Alvarez

July 6, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Ronald A. Guzman


Plaintiff, Philip McDowell, an inmate currently incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, County of Cook, and the Village of Alsip. Plaintiff seeks access to DNA and fingerprint evidence gathered in the investigation of the murder of Joseph Panky. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to the murder in 1993. Plaintiff filed a post-conviction motion in the Circuit Court of Cook County seeking access to the evidence, which the state court denied. Plaintiff then brought this action. The Defendants have each filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the state court's denial of Plaintiff's post-conviction motion bars him from raising his claims here under either the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or res judicata. Plaintiff has responded. For the following reasons, the court denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice to refiling their motions, wherein they addresses the status of Plaintiff's state court proceedings.


In 1993, Plaintiff McDowell pleaded guilty to the 1989 murder of Joseph Freeman-Pankey. Pankey was stabbed to death in his Chicago hotel room and his Buick Regal was stolen. Plaintiff had traveled to Chicago with Pinkey. Plaintiff indicates that he was beaten by officers before he pleaded guilty. Plaintiff submits with his § 1983 complaint an affidavit of another inmate, Charles Fehill, who states that Glenn Seratt confessed to killing Pankey. (Complaint, Exh. C, 26-34; see also R.41, Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss, 3-4.)*fn1

Plaintiff was sentenced to 60 years of imprisonment. Plaintiff subsequently filed a state habeas petition, which in 2002, the Illinois Supreme Court remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County with instructions to treat as a state post-conviction petition and to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's claim of actual innocence. (Complaint, Exh. A.).

Plaintiff's pleadings indicate that, following the remand, he filed two requests for access to fingerprint and DNA evidence in the Cook County Circuit Court. In 2006, he filed a petition under 725 ILCS 5/116-3 seeking access to the evidence. (Petition not in record). Section 5/116-3 allows post-conviction access to evidence in certain situations. In 2008, he filed a motion to conduct discovery in his post-conviction case, again seeking access to the fingerprint and DNA evidence. (Complaint, Exh. B.) Plaintiff stated in that motion that, in 2007, his attorney in his cirminal case was granted limited access to a box of evidence that contained fingerprint and DNA evidence collected from the Buick and that the evidence was still intact. (Id.) Plaintiff also stated that he was filing his request as a discovery motion because he knew that the access to evidence allowed under section 5/116-3 did not apply to persons who pleaded guilty. (Complaint, Exh. B at 2.)

Section 5/116-3 states that a person convicted in Illinois may seek post-conviction access to fingerprint and DNA evidence for testing that was not available at the time of conviction. To obtain such access, the movant must make a prima facie showing that "identity was the issue in the trial which resulted in his or her conviction." 725 ILCS 5/116-3(b)(1). In People v. O'Connell, 227 Ill.2d 31, 879 N.E.2d 315, 319 (Ill. 2007). the Illinois Supreme Court held that "defendants who plead guilty may not avail themselves of section 116-3." The court reasoned that "those defendants... have not contested their identity at trial." Id.

At a hearing in February 2009, the Cook County Circuit Court denied Plaintiff's discovery motion. (Complaint, Exh. C, Copy of 2/27/09 Hearing.) The state trial court held that, because Plaintiff pleaded guilty, he could not seek access to such evidence under 5/116-3, and that he could not seek the same relief through a discovery motion in his post-conviction proceeding under 735 ILCS 5/122-6. (Id. at 9-10.)

Following the state trial court's denial, Plaintiff brought this § 1983 suit seeking access to the DNA and fingerprint evidence.


Plaintiff contends that Illinois law allows post-conviction access to evidence in order to establish actual innocence. (Complaint at 4.) Plaintiff states that, although there is no federal constitutional claim of actual innocence, such a claim exists under the Illinois constitution. (See R. 31, Pl.'s Response, 10, citing People v. Washington, 171 Ill.2d 475, 665 N.E.2d 1330 (1996)). He contends that access to the evidence is necessary for him to prove actual innocence. Plaintiff states that denying such access to convicted persons who pleaded guilty while allowing access to those who were convicted following a trial constitutes Equal Protection and due process violations. (Id.)

The Defendants (the Cook County State's Attorney and the Village of Aslip) argue that Plaintiff is barred from raising his claim seeking access to evidence in this Court based upon two doctrines: (1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and (2) res judicata. The Defendants further contend that there is no constitutional right to evidence after a conviction. (See R. 30 and 34, Defs' Motions to Dismiss.)

A. Standard of Review

When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court considers to be true all well pleaded allegations, and any inferences reasonably drawn therefrom. See Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Under the notice pleading requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a complaint need only state a federal claim and provide enough information to sufficiently give notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint, however, must at least "plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a 'speculative level.'" E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 -77 (7th Cir. 2007). If a plaintiff pleads facts demonstrating that he has no claim, a court may dismiss the complaint. McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 888 (7th Cir. 2006). Affirmative defenses, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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