“Prosecutors are absolutely immune for actions they undertake in their capacities as prosecutors, even including malicious prosecution unsupported by probable cause.”
How later courts described this case
- “Prosecutors are absolutely immune for actions they undertake in their capacities as prosecutors, even including malicious prosecution unsupported by probable cause.”
- “[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEVEN C. CRABB, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 24-cv-4162
)
ROBERT HOLLINSHEAD, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and civilly detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention
Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, files
a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). The “privilege to proceed
without posting security for costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants
who, within the District Court’s sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such
privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651
(7th Cir. 1972). A court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the
action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis only
if Plaintiff’s Complaint states a federal claim.
This 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, the-defendant-unlawfully-
harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 F. App’x 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Plaintiff files suit against Attorney Robert Hollinshead and the People of the State of
Illinois. Plaintiff claims his prison sentence ended in March 2010, but Defendants filed a petition
claiming that he suffers from a mental disorder. Plaintiff was found to be a sexually violent
offender and civilly committed at Rushville. Plaintiff alleges his lifetime detainment at Rushville
violates his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff also asserts he is unable to attend sex offender
treatment in a group setting due to an unspecified physical condition and was denied individual
sex offender treatment through the institutional mail.
Regarding Defendant Hollinshead, “state prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suits
under § 1983 for activities that are ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal
process.’” Foreman v. Wadsworth, 844 F.3d 620, 624 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)); Archer v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 612 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Prosecutors
are absolutely immune for actions they undertake in their capacities as prosecutors, even including
malicious prosecution unsupported by probable cause.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails
to state a claim for relief against Defendant Hollinshead.
“[T]he ‘People of the State of Illinois’ cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Warren v.
Illinois Dep't of Corr., No. 12-CV-3148, 2012 WL 2574768, at *2 (C.D. Ill. July 2, 2012); Will v.
Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a State nor its officials acting
in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983.”). “Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue a
‘person’ who, acting under color of law, violates his constitutional rights.” Brown v. Milwaukee
Cnty. Jail, No. 20-CV-1367, 2021 WL 763809, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 26, 2021).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Court will allow Plaintiff one opportunity to amend his
Complaint within 30 days of this Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state
a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 a timely 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) The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank Section 1983 complaint form.
ENTERED: 1/14/2025
s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
United States District Judge