Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Scheurich v. Doe

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 28, 2017

DAVID SCHEURICH, M-53661 Plaintiff
JOHN DOE, 1, JOHN DOE, 2, Defendants.


          PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge

         Plaintiff David Scheurich, an inmate at Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that his interstate extradition from Arkansas to Illinois was premature in that it failed to comply with applicable procedural requirements. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 (the unidentified individuals that transported Plaintiff from Arkansas to Illinois).

         This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the First Amended Complaint[1] 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.


         On May 2, 2014, in Champaign County Circuit Court Case Number 14-CF-52, Plaintiff entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated DUI in violation of Section 11-501(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)), a felony under Illinois law. Plaintiff was released and ordered to appear for sentencing on July 7, 2014. Plaintiff failed to appear at his sentencing and was sentenced in absentia to 7 years imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections.

         As is described in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was subsequently detained by authorities in Arkansas and extradited to Illinois in relation to his conviction and sentence in Case Number 14-CF-52. On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff appeared in Champaign County Circuit Court and was advised of the sentence imposed in absentia. Plaintiff was remanded to the custody of the Sheriff for transportation to the Department of Corrections and is presently incarcerated at the Southwestern Correctional Center, serving the 7 year sentence imposed in Case Number 14-CF-52.

         The Amended Complaint

         In June 2015, for reasons not specified in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was detained by Arkansas authorities.[3] The State of Illinois sought to extradite Plaintiff in relation to his prior conviction and sentence in Champaign County for aggravated DUI. (Doc. 10, pp. 13-18). Plaintiff refused to waive extradition and, on July 28, 2015, Plaintiff appeared before Judge Lance Wright, an Arkansas state judge, concerning the same. (Doc. 10, pp. 6, 13-18). It appears that, at the time of the hearing, the State of Illinois had submitted paperwork to the Governor of Arkansas regarding Plaintiff's extradition. (Doc. 10, pp. 13-15). However, the paperwork had not been signed by the Governor of Arkansas. Id.

         Judge Wright heard argument from the parties regarding the procedural requirements for interstate extradition (or rendition). (Doc. 10, pp. 13-18). Specifically, the parties addressed the requirements imposed by federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3182, and by Arkansas' Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.[4]Id. Judge Wright concluded that the applicable extradition procedures (established by 18 U.S.C. ยง 3182 and Arkansas' Uniform Criminal Extradition Act) had been initiated by Illinois but were not yet completed. (Doc. 10, p. 16). Accordingly, Judge Wright scheduled an additional hearing for August 11, 2015, presumably to allow authorities time to comply with the remaining procedural requirements. (Doc. 10, pp. 6, 16). At the close of the July 28, 2015 hearing, Plaintiff's ...

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.