The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:
Monday, 05 March, 2012 12:19:04 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on systemic challenges to the conditions at the facility.
The "privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the District Court's sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them." Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis "at any time" if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal claim. A hearing was scheduled to assist in this review but has been cancelled as unnecessary.
To state a claim, the allegations must set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to give "'fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(add'l citation omitted). The factual "allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a 'speculative level.'" Id., quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555-56. However, pro se pleadings are liberally construed when applying this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff is detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act.
He alleges that he is "denied the right to technical assistance in the form of a personal computer, demonstration projects, dissemination of information and implementation of scientific based research located in established libraries." He also alleges denial of access to the law library at the facility and describes that library as inadequate because he can access only "criminal state or federal constitutional law." He also asserts that the electronic filing system (recently begun at the facility through a cooperative agreement between this Court and the facility) does not work and has prevented him from timely filing documents.
Plaintiff further alleges that he has been denied the right to a job in the facility and denied his right to earn minimum wage. He alleges that he has a right to a therapeutic and positive atmosphere but instead is constantly harassed and treated in a punitive manner. He wants to be treated like a patient, not a prisoner. He further alleges he should be receiving educational and vocational training to prepare him for gainful employment when he is released. He assails the facility's requirement that all outgoing mail be stamped with a return address indicating that the mail comes from a detention center for sexually violent persons. He contends this violates his right to privacy and his right to communicate.
Lastly, Plaintiff appears to allege that he received a false disciplinary report on August 21, 2011, charging him with various rule ...