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.

Oliver v. Carr

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 21, 2019

KING MICHAEL OLIVER, [1] also known as MICHAEL OLIVER, #B89925, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL C. CARR, JAYSON CLARK, JUDGE GRACE, JUDGE BLOODWORTH, and G. ROWALD, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Michael Oliver, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections currently incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights in a state court criminal proceeding. He seeks monetary damages.

         This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         Complaint

          Plaintiffs make the following allegations in the Complaint: Plaintiff made requests for discovery prior to a preliminary hearing in a state court criminal proceeding but did not receive the discovery. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4). During the preliminary hearing, Judge Grace denied his second request for discovery. (Id. at 4). In a subsequent proceeding before Judge Bloodworth, Plaintiff was allowed to briefly review the documents in open court. He was later allowed to listen to audio recordings and view video recordings. Plaintiff showed Clark his Facebook live footage and Clark is trying to figure out a way to destroy that evidence. (Id. at 4-5). The State requested a continuance of the trial date and Judge Bloodworth granted it in violation of Plaintiff's 120-day speedy trial demand. (Id. at 3). Deputy Rowald's signature appears in proofs of service on two documents from the State's Attorney's Office which state Plaintiff was served by hand delivery at the Jackson County Jail at a time when he was not in custody at the jail.

         Plaintiff asserts the following claims in the Complaint:

Count 1: Carr and Clark conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights by denying his right to discovery.
Count 2: Judge Grace deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights by denying his motion for discovery at the preliminary hearing.
Count 3: Judge Bloodworth did not correct the previous deprivation of his right to discovery when it was brought to his attention.
Count 4: Judge Bloodworth, Carr, and Clark conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his right to a 120-day speedy trial when the State requested, and the Judge granted, a continuance of the trial date.
Count 5: Clark and Deputy Rowald falsified documents because the proofs of service state the documents were hand delivered to Plaintiff at the Jackson County Jail at a time when he was not in custody at the jail.

         The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.[2]

         Discussion [3]

         Counts ...


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.