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.

Williss v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

January 12, 2017

MACEO G. WILLIS, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
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

          STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff 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.

         The Court will conduct a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B)[1], 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.

         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 dismiss this case with prejudice at this time.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff 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, Illinois.

         The § 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 this case.

         In the 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).

         Plaintiff 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 ...


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.