United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
DARROW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se and presently civilly committed at
Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility
(“TDF”), filed the present action alleging that
government officials unlawfully rerouted a package sent to
him via the United States Postal Service. Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.
3). The motion is denied.
“privilege to proceed without posting security for
costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished
litigants who, within the District Court's sound
discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such
privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v.
North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir.
1972). Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding
in forma pauperis “at any time” if the
action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this court grants
leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the
complaint states a federal action.
reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in the
plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and
labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to
“state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422
(7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
alleges in his complaint that he never received a care
package containing approximately $450.00 in food and other
merchandise that his family sent to him at the facility.
Plaintiff alleges that the items had been previously approved
by TDF security staff. Plaintiff alleges that, upon inquiry
through the TDF grievance process, he “was informed
that someone had [his] package turned around and [sent] to a
post office somewhere in Chicago, Illinois.” (Doc. 1 at
6). Plaintiff alleges that the post office in Rushville,
Illinois did not respond to his requests for information, and
that the “post office general” confirmed his
package was somewhere in Chicago. Plaintiff alleges that he
did not authorize anyone to send his package to Chicago, and
that he does not “know who had my package [sent] to
Chicago, Illinois or why.” Id. Plaintiff sued
the United States Postal Service, the Rushville Post Office,
and three federal government officials.
a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government
and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer,
510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Although the Federal Tort Claims
Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), generally waives
sovereign immunity for negligent acts committed by federal
employees acting within the scope of their employment, any
waiver therein provided is inapplicable to “any claim
arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent
transmission of letters or other postal matter.” 28
U.S.C. § 2680(b); see also Dolan v. U.S. Postal
Service, 546 U.S. 481 (2006). Plaintiff's claim
based upon the non-delivery of his package falls squarely
into the types of claims to which sovereign immunity has not
extent that Plaintiff seeks to proceed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), he runs into
other problems. Plaintiff's allegations suggest that the
deprivation of property he suffered was the result of an
intentional, but unauthorized, act of an unidentified
government official. In other words, the diversion of
Plaintiff's package was not mandated by an established
TDF or other governmental policy-the culprit acted on his own
volition. In this scenario, the deprivation Plaintiff alleges
does not violate the constitution where state law provides a
meaningful post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984). The Illinois Court of
Claims provides such a remedy. See Stewart v.
McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031, 1036 (7th Cir. 1993). In
addition, Plaintiff cannot sue an individual under these
provisions merely because the individuals held supervisory
positions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676
(2009) (no vicarious liability under § 1983).
the Court finds that the officials Plaintiff seeks to sue are
immune from suit and that he fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Any amendment to the complaint
would be futile.
1) Plantiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis  is DENIED.
2) This case is dismissed. All pending motions are denied as
moot, and this case is closed. Clerk is directed to enter
judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.
3) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file
a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the
entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave
to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues
Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be