United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MARK A. EVANS, B24338, Plaintiff,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Mark A. Evans brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At
the time of filing, Plaintiff was an inmate at Hill
Correctional Center. However, he was released on parole on
August 11, 2017. Plaintiff contends that he was incarcerated
beyond his release date and seeks monetary damages for
excessive incarceration. In connection with this claim,
Plaintiff sues the People of the State of Illinois.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint 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
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.
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
September 22, 2016, Plaintiff was arrested on a domestic
battery charge in Lawrence County, Illinois. (Case No.
16-cf-112). (Doc. 1, p. 4). He eventually entered a plea of
guilty and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
(Doc. 1, pp. 4-5; IDOC offender website).According to the
Complaint, prison officials miscalculated Plaintiff's
parole date by failing to give him credit for his pretrial
detention at Lawrence County Jail from September 22, 2016 to
December 28, 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). Although not entirely
clear, the Complaint suggests that Plaintiff's negotiated
plea agreement and the Order of the sentencing court
specified that Plaintiff was to receive credit for this
entire period (97 days). However, exhibits attached to the
Complaint suggest that the sentencing court concluded
Plaintiff was only entitled to credit for a portion of this
pretrial detention. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10). Plaintiff contends
that because his sentence credit was miscalculated, he was
improperly held beyond what should have been his release
Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se
action into 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. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but
not addressed in this Order is dismissed without prejudice as
inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading
1 - Eighth Amendment claim against The People of the
State of ...