United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW -AMENDED COMPLAINT
ENTERED MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
currently incarcerated in the Hill Correctional Center, has
filed a motion for leave [ECF 11] and amended complaint
against the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) and the State of Illinois. The case is
before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts
the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and
labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to
"'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418,
422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted). While the pleading
standard does not require “detailed factual
allegations”, it requires “more than an
accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx.
588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
original complaint was dismissed as vague and too confusing
to state a claim. His amended complaint is not much better.
Plaintiff has submitted documents establishing that, on May
11, 2012, he was convicted of criminal sexual assault and
sentenced to 14 years in prison. Plaintiff was given credit
for 49 days spent in pretrial custody and sentenced to a term
of Mandatory Supervise Release (“MSR”) from three
years to natural life. Plaintiff provides a copy of the
sentencing order as well as well as a sentence calculation
sheet from the Illinois River Correctional Center and another
from the Lawrence Correctional Center, [ECF 11 p. 4 and 5],
respectively. He asserts that he has been imprisoned on
“false documents” and requests immediate release.
the sentencing order, Plaintiff alleges that Judge Fahey,
“never offered a sentences agreement in Court for [him]
to sign” and that an unspecified box had not been
checked. If Plaintiff disagrees with the fact of his
conviction or duration of his sentence, he may not dispute it
in a § 1983 claim unless that conviction or sentence has
been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
487 (1994). “When a state prisoner seeks damages in a
§ 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a
judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply
the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. “
Id. at 487. See also, Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (habeas is exclusive remedy for
plaintiff challenging the duration of custody, seeking
the calculations sheets, Plaintiff alleges that on January 8,
2014, someone from field services “processed me
out” and then “process me back in” on the
same charges. While it is not clear, Plaintiff appears to
claim that this apparently clerical function changed his
projected out date. Each of the calculation worksheets shows
a mandatory out date of March 22, 2026. The calculations from
Illinois River show a projected out date of February 16,
2024, while the one from Lawrence shows a projected out date
of April 11, 2024. [ECF 11 p. 4-5]. The Seventh Circuit has
held, however, that a prisoner does not have a protected
liberty interest in a projected, as opposed to mandatory,
release date. Kendrick v. Hamblin, 606 Fed.Appx. 836
(7th Cir. 2015).
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint
[ECF 11], is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Any further amendment to the Complaint would be
futile because one claim is Heck-barred and the
other fails to implicate a protected liberty interest. This
case is therefore closed. The clerk is directed to enter a
judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.
dismissal shall count as one of the plaintiff's three
allotted “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(g). The Clerk of the Court is directed to record
Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log.
Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even
though his case has been dismissed. The agency having custody
of Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the
Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order.
Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a
notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry
of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues
Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, ...