United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
CORBIN D. JONES, Plaintiff,
NEIL MOONEY, and CITY OF MT. VERNON, ILLINOIS Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a former detainee at the Jefferson County Justice Center,
brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests monetary damages.
At the time of filing, Plaintiff was not incarcerated,
meaning that he was not a “prisoner” under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. However, he has filed a motion seeking
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and so the Court
will screen this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), which provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal-
i. is frivolous or malicious;
ii. fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
iii. seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
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.
claims that he was “falsely imprisoned for six
months.” (Doc. 1, p. 2). The Complaint identifies two
defendants: (1) Neil Mooney, described as the arresting
police officer and (2) the City of Mt. Vernon. (Doc. 1, pp.
1-2). The statement of claim consists of a single page that
includes several confusing statements. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The
statements are not associated with any particular individual,
let alone the named Defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The Court
specifically notes the following:
• “Violated Rule 1.16 of the Illinois Rules of
• “[They] had all the evidence in front of them to
know the case was wrongful but they decided to push
• “Also liable, slander, defamation of character,
abuse of process, sovereign immunity, violation of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.”
• “The Federal Tort Claims Act allows an
individual to sue the federal government…”
(Doc. 1, p. 6).
Complaint was filed with 55 pages of exhibits. (Doc. 1-1).
However, only a single page relates to the instant case.
(Doc. 1-1, p. 1). The other 54 pages are filings related to
other civil rights actions Plaintiff is pursuing or
previously pursued in this Court. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 2-55). The
page that appears to be relevant to the instant case includes
the following additional information:
• Plaintiff was arrested or falsely imprisoned on