United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ...