The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
HOWARD WILSON, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 26-1113-SEM-DJQ
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al., )
Defendants. )
ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Howard Wilson, proceeding pro se and presently
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, has filed a Complaint
(#1) naming as defendants the State of Illinois, McClean County,
the City of Bloomington, and the State’s Attorney’s Office. Plaintiff
asserts claims for breach of contract, false arrest, false conviction,
false imprisonment, producing false proof, prosecutorial
misconduct. He seeks $75 million in damages.
BACKGROUND
After asserting the above claims, Plaintiff’s Complaint proceeds
by way of letter that does not make any reference to those claims.
1
Rather, the letter concerns Plaintiff’s other legal cases, past and
present, in this court, the Southern District of Illinois, and the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.1
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Illinois in
1999 against the State of Illinois, the McClean County State’s
Attorney’s Office, and various employees of that office. That matter
was transferred to this court in case number 99-CV-1014 and
voluntarily dismissed after District Judge Michael Mihm found that
a petition for writ of habeas corpus was a more proper vehicle for
Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff writes in his letter that he wishes to refile
that case and give it a new case number. He has attached the
“Notice of Law Suit” from that case. It includes many of the same
“claims” he raises here, and also requests $75 million in damages.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must “screen”
Plaintiff’s complaint and, through such process identify and dismiss
any legally insufficient claim or the entire action if warranted. A
1 The first page of Plaintiff’s letter is not included in his pleading, and the letter makes
multiple references to the recipient contacting this court, both of which suggest the
letter was originally written for other purposes.
2
claim is defective 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.
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. While the court at this stage accepts
the factual allegations in a complaint as true and liberally
construes them in the plaintiff’s favor, it will not accept as true any
legal assertions, threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, or conclusory statements. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Plaintiff has not stated any claim. He has not described
anything that any defendant has done to violate any of his rights
under the United States Constitution or to otherwise violate some
federal law. Plaintiff’s Complaint is a laundry list of causes of
3
action, unaccompanied by any factual allegations that might render
those claims plausible. His cross-reference to his 1999 case, which
he wishes to “refile” here, is insufficient. See Daniels v. Brown, 2022
WL 2286896, at *2 (S.D. Ill. June 24, 2022) (“Although pro se
pleadings are given great deference, if the Court is required to scour
exhibits from different cases to understand a claim, it is not clearly
pled.”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (#1) is DISMISSED.
2. Plaintiff is granted leave to replead. Plaintiff shall have 28
days to file an amended complaint if he believes he can state a
claim. If he does not do so the case will be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.
ENTERED May 20, 2026.
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
________________________________
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4