United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
KING MICHAEL OLIVER, also known as MICHAEL OLIVER, #B89925, Plaintiff,
ANDREW SABENS, ASHLEY NOTO, and CARBONDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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. He
seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.
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, 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).
make the following allegations in the Complaint: On April 9,
2019 at 6:30 a.m. officers entered Plaintiff’s house
and walked to the room where he was lying in bed. This was an
unlawful entry and an unreasonable search and seizure. (Doc.
1, p. 2). The officers confirmed his identity and told him
they were looking for his girlfriend because her Dad had
called them. (Id., pp. 2, 3). Plaintiff tried
calling his girlfriend but she did not answer. (Id.)
The officers provided their last names but refused to give
their first names and badge numbers. (Id.). The
officers left after he called his sister and asked her to
call the state police. (Id.).
later, other officers arrived including a couple of
detectives, a crime scene investigator (CSI), Officer Ashley
Noto, and a female officer. (Id.). Plaintiff
recorded the events via Facebook live because he believed
they came to kill and/or arrest him. (Id.). One of
the detectives told him they were there because Plaintiff had
left the scene of an accident a few days earlier.
(Id.). The CSI asked to call Plaintiff’s
girlfriend. (Id., p. 4). At this point everyone was
outside the house and he gave the detective permission to
“climb into the window to fetch his phone.”
(Id.). The detectives went in to get his phone.
(Id.). When they returned with his phone, the
battery had been removed, which was the only way to turn off
the phone without his security code. (Id.). The
phone had been recording prior to them retrieving it.
(Id.). It was apparent that they had “done
something to it evidenced by some type of rainbow dust on the
front screen.” (Id.). This was an unlawful
search and seizure. (Id.). Plaintiff had to turn on
the phone to make the call. (Id.). The CSI asked him
to come to the station for more questions and he told them he
would do so after confirming they were real police officers
and that they were supposed to be in his residence.
point, Plaintiff felt he needed to take off his shirt so that
it was clear he did not have any weapons on him.
(Id., p. 5). Once the officers left, he did not feel
safe and so he decided to go somewhere with a lot of cameras
and witnesses. (Id.). He went to Schnucks, which was
right around the corner. (Id.). After he entered the
store, he went to the front service desk and asked the store
clerk to call the state police. (Id.). He continued
recording via Facebook live. (Id.). The store clerk
made the mistake of calling 911. (Id.). He asked the
911 dispatcher to connect him to the state police.
(Id.). The dispatcher told him to call the
“non-emergency” number but gave him an incorrect
number twice. (Id.). The third time, the dispatcher
told him she would send officers to arrest him if he called
again. (Id., pp. 5, 6). The dispatcher finally gave
him the correct number, but the store clerk told him she
could not make any more phone calls for him because he was
shirtless. (Id., p. 6). He asked to buy a shirt, but
he did not have his wallet with him. (Id.).
asked the store clerk if there was a place to charge his
phone and the clerk directed him to a power outlet by the
video vending machine in the lobby. (Id.). He went
there immediately because his battery was dangerously low and
he had been asked to leave. (Id.). He plugged in his
charger and phone and continued to record. (Id.).
The store manager met him at the vending machine and told him
he could not remain inside or use the phone because he was
not wearing a shirt. (Id., p. 7). The store manager
directed Plaintiff to a power outlet just beyond the entry
was having a conversation with the store manager and some
employees awaiting Carbondale Police Department’s
arrival when he saw Officer Noto approaching. (Id.).
Officer Sabens stood in the background. (Id.).
Another officer charged him from behind and aggressively
handcuffed him so tight that his circulation was compromised
causing severe pain and numbness in his fingers.
(Id., pp. 7, 8). The officer yelled at him to
“let go of the phone” and then took his phone and
everything in his pockets (which was given to a friend that
was with him). (Id.).
was placed in the nearest police vehicle. (Id.).
After noticing the police vehicle was equipped with video and
audio recording equipment, Plaintiff asked Officer Sabens to
loosen the handcuffs, but Sabens did not respond.
asserts the following claims in the Complaint:
Count 1: Unlawful Entry and Unreasonable Search and
Seizure claim against unknown individuals for entering
Plaintiff’s residence without his permission and
without a warrant.
Count 2: Unlawful Search and Seizure against unknown
individuals for taking the battery out of Plaintiff’s
phone to turn it off and stop a recording and for doing
something to his phone as evidenced by rainbow dust on 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 theComplaint but not addressed
in this Order is considered ...