United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
ORDER & OPINION
BILLY McDADE United States Senior District Judge
matter is before the Court on a sua sponte review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). For the reasons stated below,
the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted and her claims must be
November 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed this complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants Leigh, Mucci, and
the Putnam County Sheriff's Department had violated her
constitutional rights by forcefully evicting her from her
home. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). On November 17, 2016,
the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3). The Court also performed a
screening of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). (Doc. 3). The Court found that based on the
Complaint, the Court could not find at that stage in the
litigation that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. (Doc. 3 at 2).
March 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed an exhibit to her Complaint.
(Doc. 28). The exhibit was an additional eight pages of
factual pleadings pertaining to the Complaint. (Doc. 28).
Because of the additional facts, it appeared to the Court
that the Plaintiff may have pled herself out of Court by
establishing that her claims are not redressable. Therefore,
on March 28, 2017, the Court issued an order requiring
Plaintiff to show cause as to whether she had failed to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Mar.
28, 2017 Text Order. On April 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed her
response to the order to show cause. (Doc. 31). The Court now
reviews Plaintiff's Complaint, her additional facts, and
her response to the show cause order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
complaint of a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis must be
dismissed at any time, if the Court deems that it is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). When evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has
stated a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B), courts use the
same standards that apply to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) motions. Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
722 F.3d 1014, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013). Therefore, the court
will take “all well-pleaded allegations of the
complaint as true and view[ ] them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Id. (citing Arnett
v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). A
plaintiff need only give “‘fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv.,
Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776-77 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). Furthermore, a pro se complaint is to be construed
liberally and held to “less stringent standards than a
formal pleadings by lawyers.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
are two ways a plaintiff can find his or her case dismissed
for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. The first is if the plaintiff did not allege enough
facts to state a claim that would be plausible on its face.
Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 580 (7th
Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). To be facially plausible, a
complaint must allow the court to “draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
second is if he or she pled facts that show he or she has no
legal claim. Atkins v. City of Chi., 631 F.3d 823,
832 (7th Cir. 2011). This includes not only the facts alleged
within the complaint, but also the facts from documents that
were incorporated into the pleadings. In re Wade,
969 F.2d 241, 249 (7th Cir. 1992). If the plaintiff
voluntarily provides unnecessary facts in his or her
complaint, those facts may be used to show that the plaintiff
is not entitled to relief. Tamayo v. Blagojevich,
526 F.3d 1074, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
claims arise from the forced eviction from her rental home.
At this stage of the proceedings, the Court takes
Plaintiff's well-pled allegations as true and draws all
reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. On November
6, 2014, Plaintiff had a hearing in her divorce proceedings
against Defendant Leigh. (Doc. 28 at 5). When she returned
home, she discovered that the locks had been changed and her
key did not work. (Doc. 28 at 5). Plaintiff then called the
Putnam County Sheriff's Department and informed them that
she needed their help to get into the house. (Doc. 28 at 6).
Officer Physcia responded that if it was her house, she
should break the window and go in. (Doc. 28 at 6).
November 8, 2016, Plaintiff returned to the house with her
sister and cousin. (Doc. 28 at 7). A locksmith, whom
Plaintiff had contacted, was unable to meet them in the
morning, so Plaintiff left for lunch. (Doc. 28 at 7). As she
was leaving, she noticed a sheriff's car following her.
(Doc. 28 at 7). She pulled her vehicle over and the officer
approached her window. (Doc. 28 at 7). The officer informed
her that he had received a call that she was trying to break
into the house. (Doc. 28 at 7). Plaintiff took the
officer's recorder and stated her name and that it was
her home. (Doc. 28 at 8). The officer then informed her that
he would meet her at the house after lunch. (Doc. 28 at 8).
Plaintiff returned that afternoon, Officer Kasenski was
waiting. (Doc. 28 at 8). He informed Plaintiff that Defendant
Mucci had called him and told him that he owned the property
and had eviction papers for Plaintiff. (Doc. 28 at 8).
Officer Kasenski informed Plaintiff that he had orders to
remove Plaintiff's goods from the home. (Doc. 28 at 8).
The officer proceeded to remove Plaintiff's goods as she
identified them. (Doc. 28 at 8). While moving, Plaintiff
noticed that her “357 gun” and $5, 000 in cash
were missing from her possessions in the house. (Doc. 28 at
8). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her due
process by forcibly evicting her from her home and without
the proper documentation, according to Forcible Entry and
Detainer Act, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/9-101.