United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MARK A. EVANS, B24338, Plaintiff,
IDOC, and JOHN FROST, Defendants.
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 claims that he was incarcerated
beyond his release date and seeks monetary damages for
excessive incarceration. In connection with this claim,
Plaintiff sues the Illinois Department of Corrections and
John Frost, a grievance counselor.
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.
First Amended Complaint
September 22, 2016, Plaintiff was arrested on a domestic
battery charge in Lawrence County, Illinois. (No. 16-cf-112).
(Doc. 10, p. 11). He entered a guilty plea on December 28,
2016 and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. (Doc.
10, pp. 6, 11; 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. 10, pp. 6, 11). Plaintiff was
released on August 13, 2017. (Doc. 10, p. 6). He contends
that had he received day-for-day credit from the date of his
arrest (September 22, 2016), he would have been released on
June 22, 2017. (Doc. 10, pp. 6, 11-12).
filed a grievance pertaining to this issue on July 11, 2017.
(Doc. 10, pp. 11-12). His grievance counselor, John Frost,
referred the matter to the Record Office and received the
In response to IM grievance - the calculation has been
reviewed and is correct as stands. Per IDOC guidelines the
calculation was completed as follows: The mittimus ordered
the jail credit of time shown on the Sheriff's
certificate 9/22/16-11/6/16. This credit was subtracted from
the date of sentencing, 12/28/16. If offender disagrees with
the calculation he will need to contact the court and request
another amended mittimus which issues additional jail credit.
Issue is moot.
(Doc. 10, p. 13). This response was relayed to Plaintiff on
July 14, 2017. Id.