United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
WILLIAM J. KAMPWERTH, Plaintiff,
CRYSTAL UHE, NEIL SCHROEDER, and TIMOTHY DEAN BERKLEY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.
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
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.
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
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. (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)
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.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into one
1-Defendants violated Plaintiff's Sixth Amendment ...