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.

Henderson v. Baldwin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 19, 2018

ADELL HENDERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BALDWIN, CRAIG FINLEY, KAREN JAIMET, D. WAYNE DUNN, WILLIAM NORTON, and VONETTA HARRIS, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Adell Henderson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests declarative relief, damages, fees, and costs for unconstitutional false imprisonment.

         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).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under Section 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         In approximately 1958, Plaintiff received a prison term in Illinois of five years to life imprisonment. (Doc. 1, p. 2, 4). After serving “2 1/3” of the sentence, Plaintiff was paroled, and ended up in Arizona in 1971. Id. Plaintiff was out on parole from 1971 until 1975, at which time it appears that he caught another charge. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3). Plaintiff received a term of 90 to 95 years in the Arizona Department of Corrections, but he was released in 2015 after serving 40 years. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Before Plaintiff could re-enter society, he was nabbed by two marshals, who arrested him at the request of the IDOC on April 7, 2015. Id.

         Plaintiff entered Pinckneyville Correctional Center on May 20, 2015. Id. Plaintiff alleges that IDOC has no right to hold him, and that his detention is the result of racial prejudice. Id. He further alleges that his due process rights were violated because Illinois did not declare him a parole violator until February 24, 2016, after he was already in custody, and because his original sentence has now been changed from “5 to life” to “life without mittimus to support.” Id.

         Plaintiff alleges that the Illinois Prisoner Review Board (“PRB”), made up of Harris, Norton, and Dunn, and authorized by Finley at the direction of Baldwin, has improperly changed his original sentence without due process of law. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5, 10). He further alleges that the PRB is improperly holding him without valid documentation of his original sentence and despite the fact that his sentence expired in 1976. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He also states that the PRB and Jaimet are deliberately indifferent to the risks posed by his incarceration at his advanced age and outside of the Arizona Department of Corrections, presumably a ...


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.