United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
GERALD D. SMITH, Plaintiff,
SHAWN JUMPER, et.al., Defendants.
E. SHADID, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se and detained in the Rushville Treatment and
Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The "privilege to proceed without posting security for
costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished
litigants who, within the District Court's sound
discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such
privilege were not afforded to them." Brewster v.
North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir.
1972). Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding in
forma pauperis "at any time" if the action is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part
of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2).
Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma
pauperis only if the complaint states a federal claim.
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, 649 (7thCir. 2013). However, conclusory
statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be
provided to "a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418,
422 (7th Cir. 2013).
is civilly detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention
Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons
Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, et seq. During a
meeting with his team of therapists, Plaintiff was told he
would not be able to progress in therapy if he did not
participate in a standard examination and participate in a
full autobiography. Plaintiff says the “statute itself
forbids the state the ability to force a defendant to
participate in an evaluation for the purpose of a Sexually
Violent Person’s Commitment Petition.” (Comp., p.
7). Furthermore, Plaintiff says he has a constitutional right
not to incriminate himself.
of the purposes for which sexually violent persons are
committed under Chapter 980 is to receive treatment, the
conditions and duration of plaintiff's confinement must
be related reasonably to that purpose.” Thielman v.
Leean, 140 F.Supp.2d 982, 1000 (W.D.Wis. April 9, 2001);
see also State v. Carpenter, 197 Wis.2d 252, 258,
541 N.W.2d 105 (1995) (concluding that Chapter 980 is
“primarily intended to protect the public and to
provide concentrated treatment to convicted sexually violent
persons, not to punish the sexual offender”).
“With regard to the nature of treatment, however, the
state enjoy[s] wide latitude in developing treatment regimens
[for sex offenders].’” Thielman, 140
F.Supp.2d at 989 quoting Kansas v. Hendricks, 521
U.S. 346, 368 n. 4 (1997). Therefore, Rushville can develop
standard evaluations to assist in providing therapy to
addition, courts have held various types of therapy
requirements do not violate the privilege against
self-incrimination. See i.e. McKune v. Lile, 536
U.S. 24 (2017)(upholding sexual abuse treatment program which
required sexual history “regardless of whether such
activities constitute uncharged criminal offenses” and
a “polygraph examination ... used to verify the
accuracy and completeness of the offender's sexual
history”); Allison v. Snyder, 332 F.3d 1076
(7th Cir. 2003)(upholding treatment of sexually dangerous
persons, which included group therapy and polygraphs
“to check whether participants in this program are
being candid.”); see also U.S. v. Warren, 843
F.3d 275, 285 (7th Cir. 2016)(regardless of debate over
polygraph's usefulness and reliability, “polygraph
conditions have been upheld by every circuit where the
circumstances warranted it” for supervised release
conditions); Ambrose v. Godinez, 5110 Fed.Appx. 470
(7th Cir. 2013)( sexually dangerous person's
claim properly dismissed where claim was essentially that he
wanted “treatment without accepting
responsibility”); U.S. v. Sines, 303 F.3d 793
(7th Cir. 2002)(upholding supervised release condition
requiring participation in sex offender treatment program,
which included “periodic progress checks via polygraph
has failed to articulate a violation of his constitutional
rights. In addition, based on the allegations, the Court does
not believe Plaintiff could state a constitutional violation
if given an opportunity to amend his complaint..
Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is
denied.  Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for
failure to state a claim. The case is closed. All pending
motions are denied as moot. [6, 8]
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 MUST set forth the issues ...