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. IDOC

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 12, 2018

MARK A. EVANS, B24338, Plaintiff,
v.
IDOC, and JOHN FROST, Defendants.

          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 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.

         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).

         The First Amended Complaint

         On 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).[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. 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).

         Plaintiff 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 following response:

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.

         Dis ...


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.