United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Herman Addison, Jr., an inmate in Graham Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights which allegedly
occurred while he was on parole. This case is now before the
Court for a preliminary review of the Amended Complaint.
Although the Court's previous order specified that such
review would take place pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), since that time, and prior to filing his Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff has been re-incarcerated. Therefore, the
Court will conduct the review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, which provides:
(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
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). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). 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). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
originally filed this action on September 29, 2015. (Doc. 1).
The Complaint underwent threshold review on October 22, 2015,
and was dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 6). That Order
noted that Plaintiff had stated a colorable claim against the
unknown parole agent who allegedly forged Plaintiff's
initials on the form waiving his preliminary hearing, but
directed Plaintiff to identify the agent in an Amended
Complaint, no later than November 30, 2015. Plaintiff failed
to do so, and the Court dismissed this case. (Doc. 13).
Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging
that, due to his re-incarnation, he did not receive the
relevant paperwork. (Doc. 11). The Court granted that motion
and re-opened the case on January 8, 2016. (Doc. 13). The
Court also filed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint that same
day. (Doc. 14).
Amended Complaint alleges that Jay Hamilton forged
Plaintiff's initials on a form waiving his right to a
preliminary hearing without Plaintiff's permission or
knowledge. (Doc. 14, p. 1). Plaintiff further alleges that on
August 25, 2015, Mark Junge, another parole agent, denied
Plaintiff the right to work at his family business, which
caused financial hardship and loss of business. (Doc. 14, p.
1-2). Plaintiff also attached a grievance that alleged that
Plaintiff's legal mail from the Federal Courts and the
State Courts was opened outside of his presence on July 16,
2015. (Doc. 14-1).
Court construes Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to contain
Count 1: Jay Hamilton violated Plaintiff's due process
rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment when he
forged Plaintiff's initials on a form waiving
Plaintiff's right to a preliminary hearing; and
Count 2: Mark Junge violated Plaintiff's due process
rights when he refused to allow him to work at his
reasons set forth below, Count 1 survives threshold review,