Walker v. IDOC ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS STEVEN D. WALKER, #M32509, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 24-cv-02325-SMY ) ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT of ) CORRECTIONS, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YANDLE, District Judge: Plaintiff Steven D. Walker, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center, filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. He claims IDOC has refused to give him sentence credit and seeks monetary damages (Doc. 1). This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Complaint Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): The judge in Plaintiff’s criminal case gave him sentence credit for 120 days plus another 97 days for the time he spent in county jail (Doc. 1, p. 6). However, IDOC refused to credit Plaintiff for those days on his sentence calculation sheet. Plaintiff was sentenced to three years, to be served at 50% time. Without the sentence credit, he will be required to serve the entire 18 months. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following claim in this pro se action: Count 1: Claim against Defendant IDOC for failing to give Plaintiff sentence credit for time served in county jail, thus subjecting him to incarceration beyond the date he should be entitled to release. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.”). Discussion Count 1 Plaintiff’s claim for money damages based on his allegedly excessive incarceration is barred by the doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994): [I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 486-87 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff does not claim that his conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated by a state or federal court. As such, if this Court were to award him damages, such an order would necessarily imply that his sentence is invalid. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for damages in this case. Disposition The Complaint and this action are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Court counts the dismissal of this action as one of Plaintiff’s three “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The claim for damages in Count 1 is dismissed without prejudice.1 When a Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the plaintiff is ordinarily given an opportunity to amend the complaint in order to correct the deficiencies. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). However, leave to amend need not be granted if further amendment would be futile. See Always Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2 F.4th 695, 707 (7th Cir. 2021); Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2013). It is clear from the Complaint that Plaintiff’s claim for damages is currently Heck-barred. Therefore, the Court concludes that further amendment of Plaintiff’s claims in this action would be futile. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, his notice of appeal must be filed with this Court within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). A proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended. If the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur another “strike.” 1 A Heck-barred claim must be dismissed without prejudice so the claim may be refiled later if the conviction or sentence is eventually invalidated. See Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2011); Mockbee v. Lee, No. 20- 2004, 2021 WL 5918556, at *2 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2021). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) must 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. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 7, 2024 s/ Staci M. Yandle_____ STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge