United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
KENNETH D. SIMS, Plaintiff,
JUSTIN HAMMERS, et al., Defendants.
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
BILLY McDADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se and incarcerated at the Illinois
River Correctional Center (“IRCC”), pursues a
§ 1983 action alleging that he has been held too long in
custody, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The case is
before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts
the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649-51 (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. United States, 721 F.3d
418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
October 21, 2016, Plaintiff was placed in the custody of the
Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) after
having been sentenced for possession of child pornography.
Plaintiff was to have been released on a 3-year to life term
of mandatory supervised release (“MSR”), also
known as parole, on April 11, 2018. Plaintiff, however, has
been classified as a sex offender and, under the terms of the
MSR, could only be released if suitable housing were found.
had submitted several proposed posted sites which were denied
as unsuitable, unsafe, or within 500 feet of a school,
playground, or other such facility. One such site was denied
as too close to a church which provided a Sunday school
program for children. In the interim, Plaintiff has submitted
another site proposal and is waiting to hear back. Plaintiff
names various IRCC officials in his complaint, claiming that
they are unlawfully holding him beyond his release date.
been determined, however, that it does not violate the
Constitution to keep a sex offender parolee in custody for
lack of MSR-compliant housing. Brown v. Randle, 847
F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2017). “[Plaintiff] does not
identify any decision of a federal court establishing that
sex offenders without approved living arrangements must be
released.” Id. at 864. “Illinois
requires sex offenders to live in approved housing during
supervised release; a prisoner who does not obtain approval
for a housing site must spend the term of supervised release
in prison.” Hoffman v. Wilks, 748 Fed.Appx.
79, 80 (7th Cir. 2019)
Plaintiff may not assert a § 1983 challenge to the
conditions of MSR under the rule of Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck provides
that a § 1983 action for damages will not be allowed if
it would challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence.
The Heck bar applies “until the conviction or
sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by
the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at
489. A challenge to the conditions of parole is a challenge
to the confinement as “conditions of parole are the
confinement.” Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d
576, 579 (7th Cir. 2003). As Plaintiff's conviction has
not been overturned or invalidated, he may not assert a
§ 1983 claim challenging the MSR conditions.
Plaintiff's appropriate remedy is in habeas, after the
exhaustion of state law remedies. See Heck, 512 U.S.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any amendment to the Complaint
would be futile because Plaintiff cannot assert a § 1983
damages claim until such time as his conviction has been
overturned, expunged or invalidated. This case is therefore
closed. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. All pending motions are MOOT, and all
internal deadlines are VACATED.
Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even
though his case has been dismissed. The agency having custody
of Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the
Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order.
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, ...