“Excessive force claims are reviewed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard.”
How later courts described this case
- “Excessive force claims are reviewed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
AUSTIN WILSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 3:24-cv-03203-JBM
)
SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, )
et al. )
)
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Graham Correctional
Center, alleges violations of his Fourth Amendment rights prior to his detention and
imprisonment. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is
now before the Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and ruling on
Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 4).
A. Merit Review
The court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and through such process 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. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)
(citation omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that on May 25, 2022, in the parking lot of Saint John’s hospital in
Springfield, Officer John Doe told him to approach. Plaintiff asked what he did and
began to step away. Officer Doe tased Plaintiff without warning. No charges were filed
against Plaintiff, and he was released from jail about one hour later. Since the
occurrence Plaintiff has suffered from chest pains, numbness in his extremities, and
shortness of breath. He is currently seeking treatment for a possible heart condition and
is receiving medical care for shortness of breath. He did not have these conditions prior
to Officer Doe tasing him.
Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim for excessive use of force in the seizure of
Plaintiff, against Officer Doe. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989) (“[A]ll claims
that law enforcement officers have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course
of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed
under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a
‘substantive due process’ approach.”); see also Dawson v. Brown, 803 F.3d 829, 833 (7th
Cir. 2015) (“Excessive force claims are reviewed under the Fourth Amendment’s
objective reasonableness standard.”); Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763, 768 (7th
Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a plausible claim against the City of Springfield
or its Police Chief. Plaintiff does not make any allegations connecting these Defendants
to the alleged excessive force he suffered. The Court will continue naming Police Chief
Kenneth Scarlette, in his official capacity, solely to respond to discovery to identify
Defendant Doe.
B. Motion to Request Counsel
Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel on his behalf.
The court undertakes an initial two-part inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff made a
reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or has been effectively precluded from doing so,
and, if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to
litigate it themselves. Watts v. Kidman, 42 F.4th 755, 760 (7th Cir. 2022), citing Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir 2007).
At the second step, the Court must consider the factual and legal difficulty of a
plaintiff’s claims, and the plaintiff’s competence to litigate them, while accounting for
the plaintiff’s literacy, communication skills, educational level, litigation experience,
and intellectual capacity and psychological history (if information on those topics is
before the court). Watts, 42 F.4th at 760.
As to the first step, Plaintiff has not established a reasonable attempt to secure
counsel on his own. Before filing any renewed motion for assistance in obtaining
counsel, Plaintiff must try to find counsel on his own. Typically, this is shown by
attaching copies of letters sent to law firms, along with copies of responses received.
Plaintiff indicates he has reached out to two attorneys. He does not indicate their area of
practice or say if he received a response.
As to the second part of the inquiry: Plaintiff’s claim is not factually difficult; he
asserts he was subjected to an instance of unconstitutional use of force on a single
occasion. The relevant facts are within his own knowledge; he can testify to what
occurred. As to the legal difficulty of Plaintiff’s claim, assuming, after discovery, a
genuine issue of material fact exists as to these claims, a jury will need to determine if
Defendant Doe’s behavior was unlawful. This is not a legally complex claim.
Plaintiff appears to be literate and has good written communication skills. He
reports attending some high school. Finally, at this stage of the case, the Court does not
find the relative merit of Plaintiff’s claim weighs either for or against the recruitment of
counsel. The Court finds Plaintiff competent to litigate this case pro se, at this early
stage of the proceedings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
Plaintiff states a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Doe. The Court will
maintain Defendant Chief Kenneth Scarlette to respond to discovery aimed to
identify Defendant Doe. Any additional claims against any other Defendant shall not
be included in the case, except at the Court's discretion on motion by a party for good
cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Clerk to terminate all
Defendants aside from Doe and Scarlette.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [4] is DENIED.
3. This case is now in the process of service. The plaintiff is to wait until
counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, so defense
counsel receives notice of such filings. Motions filed before defendants' counsel has
filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. The plaintiff need not
submit any evidence to the court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the court.
4. The court will attempt service on the defendants by mailing each
defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60 days from the date the waiver
is sent to file an answer. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. If the defendants have
not filed answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days of the entry of this
order, the plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status of service. After the
defendants have been served, the court will enter an order setting discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines.
5. With respect to a defendant who no longer works at the address
provided by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that defendant worked while at that
address shall provide to the clerk said defendant's current work address, or, if not
known, said defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used only for
effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding addresses shall be retained only
by the clerk and shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the
clerk.
6. This district uses electronic filing. After defense counsel has filed an
appearance, defense counsel will automatically receive electronic notice of any
motion or other paper filed by the plaintiff with the clerk. The plaintiff does not
need to mail to defense counsel motions and other papers that the plaintiff has filed.
This does not apply to discovery requests and responses. Discovery requests and
responses are NOT filed with the clerk. Plaintiff must mail discovery requests and
responses directly to defendants' counsel. Discovery requests or responses sent to the
clerk will be returned unfiled, unless they are attached to and the subject of a motion
to compel. Discovery does not begin until defense counsel has filed an appearance
and the court has entered a scheduling order, which will explain the discovery
process in more detail.
7. Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to depose the
plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for the defendants shall arrange the
time for the deposition.
8. The plaintiff shall immediately notify the court, in writing, of any
change in his mailing address and telephone number. The plaintiff's failure to notify
the court of a change in mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of
this lawsuit, with prejudice.
9. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order
pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Entered this 30th day of December, 2024.
s/Joe Billy McDade
JOE BILLY MCDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE