United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division
PHILIP G. REINHARD JUDGE.
has paid the initial $25 toward his filing fee, as ordered;
therefore, plaintiff's application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis  is granted. Plaintiff is
ordered to pay at least $10.00 by the 15th day of each month
until the $350 filing fee is paid in full. Having previously
received leave to file an amended complaint, plaintiff's
amended complaint  may proceed. Defendant Cody Chinery is
dismissed. The court directs the Clerk of Court to (1) file
plaintiff's amended complaint ; (2) issue summons for
service of the amended complaint on defendants Randels,
Conley, and Coomer by the U.S. Marshal; and (3) send
plaintiff three blank USM-285 (Marshals service) forms,
filing instructions, and a copy of this order. Plaintiff must
complete and return a USM-285 form for service on defendants
Randels, Conley, and Coomer. Failure to return the USM-285
forms by December 13, 2019, may result in dismissal of the
unserved defendants. Plaintiff also must promptly submit a
change-of-address notification if he moves from his current
address. Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to keep the
court informed of his proper address, this action will be
subject to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order
and for failure to prosecute. The court appoints the U.S.
Marshal to serve defendants Randels, Conley, and Coomer. The
Clerk of Court is directed to change the caption of the case
to: Lucas Noahvon Young v. County of Winnebago, Illinois, et
Lucas Noahvon Young, brings this pro se civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning allegations of
a false arrest and excessive force stemming from a traffic
stop on June 20, 2018. Before the court are plaintiff's
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and complaint for initial review.
has demonstrated that he cannot prepay the filing fee, and
thus, his application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay at
least $10.00 by the 15th day of each month until the $350
filing fee is paid in full. All payments shall be sent to the
Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier's
Desk, 20th Floor, and should clearly identify plaintiff's
name and the case number assigned to this case.
court next considers plaintiff's complaint. Under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the court is required to screen
complaints proceeding in forma pauperis and dismiss
the complaint, or any claims therein, if the court determines
that the complaint or claim is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against an immune defendant. See Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007); Turley v.
Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). Courts
screen these complaints in the same manner they review
motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 718 (7th
complaint must include “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain
statement must “give the defendant fair notice of what
the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citation omitted). The statement also must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, ”
which means that the pleaded facts must show there is
“more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). When screening a pro se
plaintiff's complaint, courts construe the
plaintiff's allegations liberally. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Courts also
“accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff['s] favor.”
Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561, 564 (7th
alleges in his amended complaint that he was stopped while
driving his vehicle by defendant police officer Randels.
, pg. 4. Defendant officer Randels made a false police
report and illegally placed him under arrest. Id.
Defendant officer Randels also “grabbed and bent
backwards” plaintiff's arm causing bodily harm.
Id. On that same day, defendant officers Randels,
Conley, and Coomer illegally searched and seized
plaintiff's vehicle. Id. Plaintiff further
alleges he appeared in state court on July 9, 2018, for trial
based on his June 20, 2018, arrest. At trial, the state court
judge granted plaintiff's motion for a directed finding
and, therefore, plaintiff's criminal case was dismissed.
Id. at pg. 5.
plaintiff's allegations the liberal construction it must
at this juncture, the court finds that further investigation
is warranted into the defendant officers' stop of
plaintiff's vehicle, plaintiff's subsequent arrest
and the search and seizure of his vehicle, as well as the
allegations of excessive force by the defendant officers.
“Allegations are not frivolous unless they are
‘clearly baseless,' ‘fanciful,'
‘irrational,' or ‘wholly
incredible.'” Felton v. City of Chicago,
827 F.3d 632, 635 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)). Plaintiff's
allegations are not frivolous, nor at this stage are they
malicious or fail to state a claim. The court cannot resolve
the issues presented by plaintiff's allegations on the
present record. Defendants must respond to the complaint.
the court dismisses Cody Chinery as a defendant. Defendant
Chinery is named as a defendant in his capacity as an
assistant state's attorney for Winnebago County,
Illinois. The allegations against defendant Chinery, while
difficult to understand, appear to focus on his role as
prosecutor in plaintiffs criminal trial. It is well-settled
that “[p]rosecutors are absolutely immune from suits
for monetary damages under § 1983 for conduct that is
‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the
criminal process.'” Smith v. Power, 346
F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). Based on the
allegations in the complaint, defendant Chinery's conduct
was purely prosecutorial in nature, and not in any regard
investigatory. Therefore, the court dismisses defendant
Chinery from plaintiffs complaint with prejudice.
court directs the Clerk of Court to (1) file plaintiffs
amended complaint ; (2) issue summons for service of the
amended complaint on defendants Randels, Conley, and Coomer
by the U.S. Marshal; and (3) send plaintiff three blank
USM-285 (Marshals service) forms, filing instructions, and a
copy of this order. The court advises plaintiff that a
completed USM-285 form is required for service on each
defendant. The Marshal will not attempt to serve defendants
unless and until the required forms are received. Plaintiff
must therefore complete and return a service form for each
defendant, and failure to do so may result in dismissal of
the unserved defendant.
court appoints the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the
individual defendants. The court directs the Marshal to make
all reasonable efforts to serve defendants. With respect to
any former employee of a policy agency who can no longer be
found at the work address provided by plaintiff, officials
must furnish the marshal with the defendant's last-known
address. The Marshal will use the information only for
purposes of effectuating service or to show proof of service,
and any documentation of the address shall be retained only
by the Marshal's service. Address information will not be
maintained in the court file nor disclosed by the Marshal,
except as necessary ...