United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
LAWRENCE M. CRANDLE, Plaintiff,
WARDEN GREG GOSSETT, et al., Defendants.
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
filed this case pro se after his release from prison. His
Complaint is not subject to a merit review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A because he did not file this case as a prisoner.
However, Plaintiff does seek leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis
only if the allegations state federal claims. Accordingly,
the Court performs a similar review of the Complaint as the
Court would under the merit review procedures.
alleges that Defendants conspired to keep him in prison
beyond his mandatory supervised release date by providing
false reasons for refusing his release and by failing to give
him notice of parole board hearings.
point, the Court cannot rule out a possible Eighth Amendment
claim that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff being kept in prison past his release date. The
Court also cannot rule out a possible procedural due process
claim regarding the parole review board hearing or hearings.
will be attempted on Defendants. However, Plaintiff must
provide addresses for Defendant Ruffin and Defendant Davey so
they can be served.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petition is granted (3).
Plaintiff states the following constitutional claims: Eighth
Amendment claim for incarceration past his release date; and,
Fourteenth Amendment claim for procedural due process
violations in hearings before the parole review board. This
case proceeds solely on the claims identified in this
paragraph. Any additional claims shall not be included in the
case, except at the Court's discretion on motion by a
party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15.
November 14, 2016, Plaintiff is directed to file addresses
for Defendants Davey and Ruffin. Failure to do so may result
in the dismissal of Davey and Ruffin without prejudice.
November 21, 2016, Plaintiff is directed to file an amended
petition to proceed in forma pauperis setting forth all his
assets, debts, income, and liabilities. Failure to do so may
result in the revocation of Plaintiff's in forma pauperis
case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is advised
to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants before
filing any motions, in order to give Defendants notice and an
opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
Defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will
generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit
any evidence to the Court at this time, unless otherwise
directed by the Court.
Plaintiff's motion for the Court to try to recruit pro
bono counsel to represent him is denied (18), with leave to
renew after Plaintiff demonstrates that he has made
reasonable efforts to find counsel on his own. Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). This
typically requires writing to several lawyers and attaching
the responses. If Plaintiff renews his motion, he should set
forth how far he has gone in school, any jobs he has held
inside and outside of prison, any classes he has taken in
prison, and any prior litigation experience he has.
Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing each
Defendant a waiver of service at the address listed by
Plaintiff. Defendants have 60 days from the date the waiver
is sent to file an Answer. If Defendants have not filed
Answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days of the
entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting
the status of service. After Defendants have been served, the
Court will enter an order setting discovery and dispositive
respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the address
provided by Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant
worked while at that address shall provide to the Clerk said
Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
Defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be
used only for effectuating service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses shall be retained only by the Clerk and
shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by
Defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date
the waiver is sent by the Clerk. A motion to dismiss is not
an answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate
under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings
shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion. In
general, an answer sets forth Defendants' positions. The
Court does not rule on the merits of those positions ...