Steven C. Crabb v. Heather Hogan, et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. Illinois
• Decided: April 21, 2026
• Docket: 4:25-cv-04210
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

STEVEN C. CRABB, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 25-4210 ) HEATHER HOGAN, 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, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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 failed to provide adequate medical care for a stricture in his colon. Plaintiff is currently litigating a lawsuit that appears to be based upon the same events

alleged in his complaint in this case. Compare Crabb v. Hogan, No. 24-cv-4071 (C.D. Ill., filed April 17, 2024). Plaintiff also alleges events that occurred more than two years prior to the date he filed this lawsuit, which would make it time-barred under the statute of limitations. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Section 1983 suits in Illinois have a two-year statute of limitations, which is tolled while the prisoner exhausts the administrative grievance process.”) (citation omitted); Liberty v. City of Chicago, 860 F.3d 1017, 1019 (7th Cir. 2017). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint in this case is duplicative of his other case and it is otherwise barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend as directed below to permit Plaintiff the opportunity to clarify his allegations and provide

any additional information he desires the Court to consider. Plaintiff’s Motion to Object and for Extension of Time (Doc. 5) Plaintiff’s motion references motions filed by the Defendants. No defendants have appeared in this case, and this motion appears to have been filed in the wrong case. Plaintiff’s motion is denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) 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. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an 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) Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank complaint form. 3) Plaintiff’s Motion [5] is DENIED. Entered this 21st day of April, 2026.

s/Sara Darrow SARA DARROW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE