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.

Richard G. Allen v. Dave Matevey

May 11, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:



Plaintiff, an inmate in the Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint with the Court in August 2010 (Doc. 1). However, this Court determined on February 23, 2011, that the complaint failed to adequately state a claim, and instructed Plaintiff that if he wanted to proceed with his case, he must file an amended complaint (Doc. 6). Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on April 8, 2011, and it is this amended complaint that the Court now reviews (Doc. 11).

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Screening.-- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for Dismissal.-- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915A. An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that portions of this complaint are subject to dismissal.


On August 13, 2009, Plaintiff accompanied his wife to the Ron & Jo's Gun Supplies Store in O'Fallon, Illinois, where she intended to purchase a firearm. His wife purchased a handgun, but pursuant to gun laws was told she would have to wait at least three days before she could take the gun. Defendant John Doe Employee of Ron & Jo's Gun Shop (Employee), who is also an "officer,"*fn1 informed Defendant O'Fallon Police Department that Plaintiff's wife had purchased a gun, and that they would be returning after three days to pick it up. As Plaintiff and his wife were driving away, they were stopped by Defendant Matevey, an O'Fallon, Ilinois, police officer, and other officers. Plaintiff's wife was informed that they were stopped because of a low muffler. Defendant Matevey then asked Plaintiff why he was at a gun store, and he replied that his wife was purchasing a gun. Plaintiff's wife was issued a ticket for the muffler, and then they were released.

On August 18, 2009, Plaintiff returned with his wife so that she could pick up her gun. After the weapon was picked up, Defendant Employee notified O'Fallon Police Department that Plaintiff was attempting to stockpile guns and was a wanted fugitive. A short time later, a fleet of police cars was behind the vehicle. Plaintiff's wife pulled over, and officers surrounded the vehicle with weapons drawn, at which time Plaintiff was removed from the vehicle. Plaintiff was then cuffed by John Doe Police Officer, so that the cuffs cut into his skin, causing abrasions and bleeding. Plaintiff was then taken to the O'Fallon Police Department.

At the station, Plaintiff was again questioned as to why he was at a gun store and why his wife purchased a gun. After 5 hours, Plaintiff was released without being charged with any crime. Plaintiff then went to the hospital to receive treatment for the cuts on his wrists. Discussion:

To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e) and 10(b), the Court finds it appropriate to break the claims in Plaintiff's pro se complaint into numbered counts, as shown below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial ...

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.