Crabb v. Hollinshead

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 Facility pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, files an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 13). 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 Amended 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. Plaintiff alleges he asked for individualized treatment during a hearing in Sangamon County Circuit Court, but Defendant Hollinshead falsely accused him of making excuses. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Hollinshead violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and discriminated against him because of his offense in 1996. Although Plaintiff served his entire prison sentence, Defendant Hollinshead allegedly allowed the court to detain and civilly commit Plaintiff under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. “[S]tate 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 fails to state a claim for relief against Defendant Hollinshead. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and § 1915A. The Court finds that any further amendment would be futile because the facts do not support a constitutional violation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any further amendment would be futile. This case is therefore

closed. The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. 2. Due to the dismissal of this case, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [4] is DENIED. 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 MUST identify the issues Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the Court in determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v. Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that an appellant should be allowed to submit a statement of the grounds for appealing so that the district judge "can make a reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith"); Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000)

(providing that a good-faith appeal is an appeal that "a reasonable person could suppose . . . has some merit" from a legal perspective). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

ENTERED: 2/28/2025

s/ James E. Shadid James E. Shadid United States District Judge