Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Addison v. IDOC PAROLE OFFICE

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 23, 2016

HERMAN ADDISON, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
IDOC PAROLE OFFICE, ST. CLAIR COUNTY SHERIFF'S INVESTIGATOR, MARK JUNGE, and EAST ST. LOUIS PAROLE AGENTS, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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 such relief.

         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). 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. 2009).

         Background

         Plaintiff 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).

         Plaintiff's 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).

         The Court construes Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to contain two claims:

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 family's business.

         For the reasons set forth below, Count 1 survives threshold review, but ...


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.