Barrett v. Pipper

• Court: District Court, C.D. Illinois
• Decided: February 9, 2024
• Docket: 4:23-cv-04198
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

DONNIE R. BARRETT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 23-4198 ) THOMAS PIPPER, et al. ) ) Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a civil detainee at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility (“TDF” or “Rushville”) is requesting leave to proceed under a reduced payment procedure for indigent plaintiffs who are institutionalized but are not prisoners as defined in 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(h). 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). This Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal action. In reviewing the 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). 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 Defendants Pipper, Hankins, Turpin, and Sronce each represented him during the pendency of his underlying civil commitment proceedings. Plaintiff alleges that these defendants failed to adequately represent him in those proceedings and violating his due

process rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides in relevant part: Every person who, under color of [law], subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress… Id. Public defenders and other defense attorneys are not state actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981), and Plaintiff does not have a right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil case. Diggs v. Ghosh, 850 F.3d 905, 911 (7th Cir. 2017). In addition, the statute of limitations bars any claim that occurred two years prior to the date Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Liberty v. City of Chicago, 860 F.3d 1017, 1019 (7th Cir. 2017). The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court ordinarily grants plaintiffs at least one opportunity to amend, but the nature of Plaintiff’s claims and the law outlined above make any amendment futile. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff’s Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis [3] is DENIED. 2) 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. Any 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). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. Entered this 9th day of February, 2024.

s/Sara Darrow SARA DARROW CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE