Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Evans v. People

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 30, 2017

MARK A. EVANS, B24338, Plaintiff,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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.

         This 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 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.

         The Complaint

         On 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).[1]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 date.

         Discussion

         The 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 standard.

         Count 1 - Eighth Amendment claim against The People of the State of ...


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.