Heather v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

ROBERT P. HEATHER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 23-3130

)

JAMES BROWN, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Vandalia Correctional Center,

was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now before the Court for a merit

review of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and through such

process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. 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.” Id.

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). Conclusory statements

and labels are insufficient—the facts alleged must “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 pleaded guilty in 1993 to a criminal offense that required

registration under the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) with the understanding that

he would only be required to register as a sex offender for ten years. Plaintiff alleges that he is

still required to comply with SORA, and that if he had known he would still be required to do so,

he would not have entered his guilty plea.

Plaintiff names as defendants a Quincy, Illinois police officer, two members of the

Illinois State Police, the Illinois Attorney General, and several John Does. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants have forced him to comply with SORA provisions that were not in effect in 1993,

that publication of his personal information on a “public access site” (presumably the Illinois Sex

Offender Registry website) places him and his family in danger of hate crimes and

discrimination, and that Defendants’ enforcement of SORA amounts to unconstitutional

punishment. Plaintiff that Defendant Brown arrested him in 2022 for violating SORA’s

provisions. Online records from the Illinois Department of Corrections indicate that Plaintiff is

currently serving a sentence for SORA violation.

Claims brought in Illinois pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have a two-year statute of

limitations, and any claims Plaintiff alleges that arise before 2021 are time-barred. Liberty v. City

of Chicago, 860 F.3d 1017, 1019 (7th Cir. 2017). His allegations that SORA does not apply to

his situation necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction for which he is currently serving a

sentence, and unless and until he successfully challenges that conviction in a habeas corpus

proceeding, he does not have a valid cause of action under § 1983. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 489 (1994); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (habeas corpus is the

exclusive remedy for individuals challenging a fact or duration of confinement and seeking

immediate or speedier release from custody).

The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to renew as directed below to permit Plaintiff the

opportunity to clarify his allegations and provide any additional information he desires the Court

to consider.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this

order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result

in the dismissal of this case, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's

amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. The

amended complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal

amendments are not accepted.

2) Plaintiff’s motion for counsel [4] is denied, with leave to renew upon demonstrating

that he made attempts to hire his own counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55

(7th Cir. 2007); Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021). This typically

requires writing to several lawyers and attaching the responses.

3) Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank complaint form.

Entered this 10th day of August, 2023.

s/Sara Darrow

SARA DARROW

CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE