United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, United States District Judge.
Lance Davidson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently housed at Menard
Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of
his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation and immediate release
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. 2009).
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
alleges that he was sentenced to three years in IDOC custody
on June 28, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 2). The sentence was to be
served at 50% with one year mandatory supervised release.
Id. Plaintiff also was awarded 128 days credit for
time served in the Montgomery County Jail. Id.
Plaintiff filed several post-trial motions and, on July 28,
2017, Judge James Roberts signed an amended judgment which
sentenced Plaintiff to two years' time in the IDOC and
one year supervised release with 128 days' credit for
time served, time to be served at 50%. Id. Plaintiff
contends that this adjustment means that he should have been
released on February 25, 2017. Id. Plaintiff
believes that the IDOC should have given him credit for the
time period of February 25 through August 4, 2017.
initial matter, Plaintiff has asked for immediate release as
part of his relief. Plaintiff cannot seek that relief as part
of a § 1983 action. A petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is the proper route, “[i]f the prisoner is
seeking what can fairly be described as a quantum change in
the level of custody-whether outright freedom, or freedom
subject to the limited reporting and financial constraints of
bond or parole or probation.” Graham v.
Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991). If, however,
the prisoner “is seeking a different program or
location or environment, then he is challenging the
conditions rather than the fact of confinement and his remedy
is under civil rights law.” Id.; see also
Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 1999).
Section 1983 jurisdiction is displaced if the habeas corpus
remedy applies. Lumbert v. Finley, 735 F.2d 239, 242
(7th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff cannot bring a request for habeas
relief and a request for relief pursuant to § 1983 in
the same lawsuit. As Plaintiff's Complaint affirmatively
states that he is proceeding under § 1983 and makes no
mention of habeas, the Court will dismiss the habeas request
from this action. Plaintiff may file a separate habeas
action, if necessary.
currently pleaded, Plaintiff's § 1983 claim fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff
alleges that the IDOC refuses to award him credit for the
time period between February 25, 2017 and August 4, 2017,
which he is due because a state court judge issued an order
reducing his sentence. The fact that the time at issue has
been awarded by a judge after a post-trial motion suggests
that Plaintiff has cleared the bar set ...