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.

Kampwerth v. Uhe

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 23, 2016

WILLIAM J. KAMPWERTH, Plaintiff,
v.
CRYSTAL UHE, NEIL SCHROEDER, and TIMOTHY DEAN BERKLEY, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff William J. Kampwerth, an inmate in Chester Mental Health Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests “to make sure this never happens to anybody else” and “restitution.” This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint 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).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff's Complaint is difficult to follow. He alleges that Timothy Dean Berkley, Chrystal Uhe, and Judge Neil Schroeder denied him two quick and speedy trials. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He does not identify the case numbers of these trials. He further alleges that he was found fit to stand trial, and a trial could have been held in January 2016, but was not.[1] (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff alleges that he has been prejudiced by the delay because the property involved in his crime has been sold. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He alleges that Berkley “ain't going to let my motions go until the capitol.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff also alleges that he attempted to file a claim for conspiracy of civil rights, but never heard back. (Doc. 1, p. 5)

         Plaintiff has also been filing documents with the Court since filing his Complaint. As with the Complaint itself, it is difficult to determine the effect Plaintiff intends the documents to have. The Court informs Plaintiff that it does not accept piecemeal Complaints, and to the extent that any subsequent filing has attempted to add claims to the Complaint, it fails. Plaintiff must follow the local rules when filing an Amended Complaint; that is, he must file a motion and a proposed amended complaint containing all claims, both old and new, with the new claims underlined to identify them as new. SDIL-LR 15.1. Plaintiff is further informed that when he intends to make a request to the Court, he should use the designation “motion” at the top of his filing.

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into one count:

         Count 1-Defendants violated Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment ...


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.