The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KENNETH A. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 21-4027
)
IDOC, et al. )
)
Defendants. )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER #2
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently detained at
Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, brought this lawsuit
alleging several constitutional violations. The case is now before the
court for a merit review of plaintiff’s claims. The court is required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915A to “screen” the plaintiff’s second amended
complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any
legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A claim
is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A.
In reviewing the second amended 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).
Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive 90 days of good-time
credit to pursuant to a bill Governor Pritzker signed into law on
January 1, 2020, prior to his release from IDOC custody. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Gooch, his correctional counselor acted
unprofessionally in response to Plaintiff’s inquiries into the matter.
Plaintiff alleges that he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in
state court. The copy of the writ Plaintiff provided suggests that he
filed the writ on or after July 23, 2020.
Plaintiff alleges that in early July 2020, Defendant Joseph, a
mental health professional, facilitated a meeting between Plaintiff
and a Wexford Health Care professional. Plaintiff does not disclose
the subject of the meeting, but he alleges that “it was a regular
routine interview based on the formality of questions.” (Doc. 13 at
5). Plaintiff alleges that, on July 20, 2020, Defendant Mullis, the
clinical services director, arranged a meeting between Plaintiff and a
psychologist. Plaintiff alleges that he met with the psychologist on
July 21, 2020, and “her questions were no different than the other
mental health professionals that I had spoken with over the course
[of his incarceration].” Id. Plaintiff alleges that IDOC officials had
“redflagged” him for detention in the Department of Human Services
because he was trying to obtain good-time credit. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Joseph “refused to present the correct information
to the Clinical Services Office,” mainly that he should not be a
candidate for confinement under the Illinois Sexually Violent
Persons Commitment Act.
Prison officials’ failure to follow state law does not create a
federally enforceable right. Lennon v. City of Carmel, 865 F.3d 503,
509 (7th Cir. 2017). Defendants arranged the routine meetings with
mental health professionals prior to the date Plaintiff filed his
petition for mandamus, and, therefore, no plausible inference arises
that their actions were motivated by Plaintiff’s litigation activity. If
Plaintiff is challenging his commitment under the SVP Act, he
should raise these arguments in his state court proceedings.
Plaintiff, therefore, does not state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint
is granted. [13.]
2) Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Any further amendment to the
Complaint would be futile. This case is therefore
terminated. All pending motions are denied as moot.
The clerk is directed to enter a 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).
Entered this 29th day of September, 2021.
s/Harold A. Baker
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE