United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MACEO G. WILLIS, JR., Plaintiff,
ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, JULIUS FLAGG, BART TOENNIS, M. DAVEY, C. RUFFIN, RICHARD J. FITZGERALD, ROBERT L. SKLODOWSKI, PAUL BIEDEL, and ANGELINE STANISLAUS Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge.
Maceo G. Willis, Jr., currently civilly committed at
Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
and monetary damages.
Court will conduct a preliminary review of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B), which provides:
Not withstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal
i. is frivolous or malicious;
ii. fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
iii. seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
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 dismiss this case with
prejudice at this time.
originally filed this suit on August 5, 2016 in the Central
District of Illinois. (Doc. 1). The case was transferred to
this district on October 17, 2016 because the events
Plaintiff complained of occurred at Centralia Correctional
Center, located in this district and in Cook County,
§ 1983 forms used by the Central District include a
section asking about a litigant's prior litigation
history. Plaintiff affirmatively answered that he had not
filed any other lawsuits in state or federal court dealing
with the same facts of this case. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Plaintiff
identified two lawsuits that he had previously filed in the
Central District of Illinois: Case No. 86 C 9589 and
Willis v. Scott. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He identified no
other case. In fact, Plaintiff has filed approximately 30
civil cases in the federal court system alone. At least one
and possibly more of those cases addresses claims present in
instant Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that after an improper
arrest, he was tried and convicted of aggravated sexual
assault. (Doc. 1, p. 8). He further alleges that aggravated
sexual assault carried a maximum penalty of 30 years, but
that Judge Sklodowski improperly sentenced him to 60
years' imprisonment, albeit without a term of
supervised release. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
satisfied his sentence on November 10, 2014, but was not
released at that time. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Bart Toennis informed
Plaintiff, along with M. Davey and C. Ruffin, that his
sentence had been discharged, but that he would not be
released because he was subject to electronic monitoring and
had failed to provide a proper host site for monitoring.
(Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff grieved this determination to the
warden of Centralia, Julius Flagg. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Flagg did
nothing, so Plaintiff appealed the grievance to the Director