Fry v. Hoostel
| Michael Lee Fry |
| Scott Hoostel |
| 1:2023cv01124 |
| March 28, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| James E Shadid |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 JUDGMENT. (AH) |
TEXT ONLY ORDER: The Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint #1 on the grounds that the Complaint failed to state a federal claim. See Text Order 3/30/23. The Plaintiff had leave to file an Amended Complaint within 21 days of that order for a deadline of 4/20/23. He has not done so. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to close this case. Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 5/2/2023. (AH)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Amended Pleadings due by 4/20/2023. (VH) |
|
TEXT ONLY ORDER: Plaintiff filed a complaint #1 along with a Petition #2 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") and a Motion #3 to Request Counsel. Plaintiff's IFP request is reviewed under 28 U.S.C. 1915 which is designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). However, the court must dismiss a case, if (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is frivolous; (3) the action fails to state a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see also Hutchinson v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognizing applicability of 1915 to cases brought by nonprisoners). Plaintiff filled out the Court provided Pro Se Civil Rights Complaint and a 32 page addendum that describes the background for the complaint. The Defendant Scott Hoostel ("Hoostel") is a Property Owner/Landlord who is self-employed and owns two properties. On the form complaint, Plaintiff says that the Defendant's complained of conduct is "Harassing me with Peoria police, Racial slurs, stole my money order of $900.00." Plaintiff rented an apartment from Hoostel for some period in 2020-2021. During this time, Plaintiff claims that Hoostel mistreated him in a number of ways. He claims that Hoostel falsely and maliciously called the police on him, had him civilly confined, and stole a $900 money order and over one hundred personal belongings. On the form complaint, Plaintiff indicates that there is an ongoing state criminal case against Hoostel, 22-16019. If he can prove these facts, Plaintiff may have viable civil claims against Hoostel for negligence, conversion, or fraud. However, those claims arise purely under state law, not federal law. Unless his complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law or an alternate basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot be brought in a federal court. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Applying a liberal interpretation of Plaintiff's pro se complaint, the only conceivable federal claim is for racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. However, the complaint fails to state an actionable claim for racial discrimination. Racially motivated harassment can violate 42 U.S.C. 3617 if the plaintiff can show that (1) he is a protected individual under the FHA, (2) he was engaged in the exercise of his fair housing rights, (3) the defendant coerced, threatened, intimidated, or interfered with the plaintiff on account of his protected activity under the FHA, and (4) the defendant was motivated by an intent to discriminate. Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771, 783 (7th Cir. 2009). Interference is more than a quarrel among neighbors or an isolated act of discrimination, but rather is a pattern of harassment, invidiously motivated. Id. (quoting Halprin v. Praerie Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Assn, 388 F.3d 327, 330 (7th Cir. 2004)). The complaint only says that Hoostel used unspecified racial slurs an unspecified number of times and this is insufficient to state a plausible claim under 3617. The Complaint #1 is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint consistent with this opinion within 21 days of this opinion if there are grounds to do so or he may pursue his state court claims in state court as discussed above. The Petition #2 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion #3 to Request Counsel are DENIED as moot. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he may refile his Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis at that time Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 3/30/2023. (AH)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Michael Lee Fry. Responses due by 4/11/2023 (AH) |
| Filing 2 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS filed by Michael Lee Fry.(AH) Modified on 3/29/2023 to correct docket entry (AH). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Scott Hoostel filed by Michael Lee Fry. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits)(AH) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Fry v. Hoostel | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Michael Lee Fry | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Scott Hoostel | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
