Hudson v. Martins
| Wendell Hudson |
| Rilwan Martins, Gaines, F and Wooten, Masjid Al-Farooq, City Of Chicago, Moussa Soukouna and MC Dominguez |
| 1:2020cv05663 |
| September 24, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Z Lee |
| Joan H Lefkow |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER: Now before the Court for initial screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) is Plaintiff's amended complaint. For the following reasons, the complaint may proceed in part. Plaintiff's single claim of false arrest on January 16, 2020 survives against the Defendant Chicago police officers, while all other claims and Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may either proceed on the claim sustained in this Order or attempt to replead his claims, including those dismissed in this Order, in a second amended complaint. If Plaintiff elects to submit a second amended complaint, it must be filed by November 25, 2020. And because a second amended complaint would replace the amended complaint, Plaintiff would have to replead all of his claims, including the claim sustained in this Order. Finally, Plaintiff's renewed request for attorney representation is denied without prejudice. Signed by the Honorable John Z. Lee on 10/28/20. Mailed notice (ph, )
|
| Filing 11 AMENDED complaint by Wendell Hudson against Rilwan Martins. (Exhibit) (mc, ) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint alleging a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for false arrest in violation the Fourth Amendment against Rilwan Martins, the executive director of the Masjid Al Farooq mosque in Chicago. See ECF Nos. 12. Because Plaintiff has sought to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must conduct an initial review of the complaint and dismiss it if it states "frivolous or malicious claims," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); see Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). And here, the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted because liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 requires "state action," or action by a "State actor," such that the action of private citizens like Defendant Martins is generally not actionable under 1983. See Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 81516 (7th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). Thus, because the complaint does not allege that Defendant Martin's conduct falls under one of the few exceptions to this general rule, the complaint fails to state a claim under 1983. And because the complaint does not allege the requirements of diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), the Court lacks jurisdiction over any state-law claim that may be suggested by the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff may submit an amended complaint by 11/6/20. If Plaintiff does not do so, this case will be terminated. Mailed notice (ca, ) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is granted. Plaintiff thus need not prepay the filing fee, and the U.S. Marshals are directed to effectuate service of process. Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #5 , however, is denied without prejudice. "When confronted with a request under 1915(e)(1) for pro bono counsel, the district court is to make the following inquiries: (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?" Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). So, here, Plaintiff must first attempt to obtain counsel on his own or show that he has been effectively precluded from doing so before asking the Court to recruit counsel for him. For instance, Plaintiff should contact law firms and legal assistance organizations and ask that they take his case for free (known as "pro bono"). Plaintiff should include the letters he receives in response to any future motion for attorney representation. What is more, given the early stage of this case and the relative simplicity of Plaintiff's complaint, which states a single claim for false arrest, the Court does not believe that Plaintiff needs the assistance of counsel to proceed at this time. Mailed notice (ca, ) |
| Filing 8 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable John Z. Lee for all further proceedings. Honorable Joan H. Lefkow no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 9/25/2020. (lma, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Wendell Hudson for attorney representation (sxb, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Wendell Hudson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (sxb, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Wendell Hudson (sxb, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (sxb, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 1 copy by Wendell Hudson (Exhibit) (sxb, ) |
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 Northern 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
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.
