United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN Chief Judge United States District Court.
Greg Stout, currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”), has
brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants
unlawfully held him in prison past his release date. (Doc.
1). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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
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.
fully considering the allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court concludes that this action is subject to
January 17, 2017, Plaintiff was sentenced for several crimes
to 3 years in prison with a 1-year period of MSR (commonly
referred to as parole), 3 years in prison with 1 year MSR,
and 3 years in prison with 2 years MSR, to run concurrently.
(Doc. 1, p. 5). The judge also allegedly found that Plaintiff
was entitled to receive credit for time served in custody, at
251 days, 27 days, and 173 days for each respective offense,
for a total of 451 days. Id. Plaintiff claims his
release date should have been April 24, 2017 based on the
court's sentencing order, but he has been
unconstitutionally held past that date. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff claims this violates his due process and Eighth
Amendment rights. Id. At the time he filed this
action on June 13, 2017, he claims he had been “held
unconstitutionally” for almost two months. Id.
relief, Plaintiff seeks immediate release from prison, as
well as compensation for the each day he spent in prison
after his release date. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court shall
characterize the pro se action in a single count.
The parties and the Court will use this designation in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. The designation of this count
does not constitute an opinion as to its merit. Any other
claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in
this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice.
1: Defendants wrongfully incarcerated Plaintiff past
his release date in violation of the ...