United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
VINCENT M. GEORGE, Jr., # R01690, Plaintiff,
SALVADORE GORDINEZ, WARDEN HODGES, M. MAYFIELD, JANIS JOKISCH, and C. DOWNEN, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge
Vincent George, Jr. brings this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) officials, who allegedly
held him at Lawrence Correctional Center for 39 days beyond
his correct release date of December 29, 2011 (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff claims that the prolonged incarceration violated
his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth
Amendment and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under
the Eighth Amendment (id.). He seeks monetary
damages to compensate him for his allegedly excessive
originally filed this action in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 3,
2014. See George v. Gordinez, No. 14-cv-08795
(N.D.Ill. 2014). After reviewing the Complaint on November 6,
2014, the Northern District entered an Order transferring the
case to this District for preliminary screening of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and all further
proceedings in this matter. However, the case was not
actually transferred to this Court until almost fourteen
months later on December 29, 2015 (Doc. 10). This Court
screened the initial Complaint and concluded that the action
was time-barred. Accordingly, the Court entered a Dismissal
Order (Doc. 16) and Judgment (Doc. 17) on March 4, 2016.
filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 18) and a Motion for
Reconsideration (Docs. 18, 27) less than twenty-eight days
later. In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff offered
clarifying information regarding allegations in his
Complaint, which suggested that the action was not
time-barred. This Court entered an Order (Doc. 26) on April
13, 2016, certifying that it would be inclined to vacate the
Dismissal Order (Doc. 16) and Judgment (Doc. 17) and reopen
the case, if the Seventh Circuit remanded the case for that
purpose. In turn, the Seventh Circuit entered an Order
Remanding Case (Doc. 28) on April 21, 2016.
April 25, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration and vacated the Dismissal Order (Doc. 16) and
Judgment (Doc. 17) pursuant to Rule 59(e) and/or 60(b)
(see Doc. 29). Plaintiff was given 35 days to file
an Amended Complaint, if he wished to do so. Plaintiff
responded by filing a timely First Amended Complaint (Doc.
30), which is now before the Court for § 1915A review.
In it, Plaintiff again names Defendants Gordinez (IDOC
Director), Hodges (Lawrence's warden), Jokisch (records
office supervisor), Downen (counselor) and Mayfield (Illinois
Prisoner Review Board) for violating his rights under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks monetary damages
against these defendants, as well as injunctive relief (Doc.
30, p. 6).
December 7, 2010, while on mandatory supervised release,
Plaintiff was arrested for aggravated fleeing and alluding of
an officer (Doc. 30, p. 8). The IDOC issued a warrant for his
arrest on December 8, 2010 and took him into custody on
December 13, 2010. He was initially incarcerated at
Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”).
While there, Plaintiff attended a preliminary hearing before
the Prisoner Review Board (“PRB”) on December 23,
2010. During the hearing, Plaintiff was informed that his
parole was still running (id.).
January 10, 2011, Plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to 2
years of incarceration in the IDOC, followed by 1 year of
mandatory supervised release (id.). He was allegedly
credited with 1 month and 4 days of time served
subsequently transferred to Lawrence Correctional Center
(“Lawrence”), where he met with Defendant
Mayfield on February 9, 2011 to discuss his sentence
calculation. Defendant Mayfield informed Plaintiff that he
had been formally declared a parole violator with an
effective violation date of December 8, 2010. Plaintiff was
denied credit for the time he spent in custody between
December 7, 2010 and January 10, 2011. His incarceration was
consequently prolonged by 39 days (id. at 9).
filed grievances to complain about this error. He also
submitted requests for meetings, or actually met with,
Defendants Downen (counselor), Jokisch (records office
supervisor) and Hodges (warden) to discuss the matter. In the
end, the parties simply disagreed on Plaintiff's release
date. Plaintiff claims that he should have been released on
December 29, 2011, but he was held for an additional 39 days
(id. at 9).
now brings an Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Defendants Gordinez (IDOC Director), Hodges (Lawrence's
warden), Jokisch (records office supervisor), Downen
(counselor) and Mayfield (Illinois Prisoner Review Board). He
seeks monetary damages as compensation for his allegedly
excessive incarceration as well as an Order requiring the
IDOC to “hire someone or assign someone to aide in
calculating [sentences]. . . .” (id. at 6).
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Under § 1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen
prisoner Complaints, including amended Complaints, to filter
out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
Court is required to dismiss any portion of the First Amended
Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted or asks for
money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557.
Conversely, a Complaint is plausible on its face “when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court is
obligated to accept factual allegations as true, see
Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some
factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that
they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's
claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir.
2009). Courts “should not accept as adequate abstract
recitations of the elements of a cause of action or
conclusory legal statements.” Id. At the same
time, however, ...