Bond v. AMC Networks Inc. et al
| Brandy L Bond |
| AMC Networks Inc. and Unamed Security Guard |
| 1:2022cv05259 |
| September 27, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Robert Blakey |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 30, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915, is designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts while simultaneously preventing indigent litigants from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Before authorizing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must make two determinations: first, the Court must determine that the litigant is unable to pay the $400 filing fee; and, second, the Court must determine that the action is neither frivolous nor malicious, does not fail to state a claim, and does not seek money damages against a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a), (e). The first determination is made through a review of the litigant's assets as stated in an affidavit submitted to the Court. The second is made by looking to the plaintiff's allegations. An action is frivolous if it is clear that the legal theory or the facts alleged are baseless or irrational. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324; Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). Here, Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #3 indicates that she has significant assets, and a regular income, which may make her ineligible for pauper status. More importantly, Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous. Plaintiff has attempted to sue AMC Networks under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that her rights were violated after a spat in the theater. But, as with her past attempts to sue here, her complaint fails because she does not allege state action. E.g., Wilson v. Warren County, Illinois, 830 F.3d 464, 468 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981); Armato v. Grounds, 766 F.3d 713, 719-20 (7th Cir. 2014)). "For a private actor to act under color of state law he must have 'had a meeting of the minds and thus reached an understanding" with a state actor to deny plaintiffs a constitutional right." Id. (quoting Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158 (1970)). See also Hanania v. Loren-Maltese, 212 F.3d 353, 356 (7th Cir. 2000) (private individual acts under color of law "if there was a concerted effort between the individual and a state actor"). Plaintiffs' complaint does reference certain individuals that could be state actors (the Chicago Police Officers, for example). But she fails to allege any conduct on their part that could amount to a constitutional violation. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim under 1983 (and can do so consistent with her obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11), she must pay the filing fee and file an amended complaint to allege facts that could give rise to an inference of constitutional deprivations committed by state actors whether on the part of state actors directly, or through the concerted efforts of private parties and state actors. For now, the complaint #1 is dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee and submit an amended complaint by 10/31/22, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Brandy L Bond for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (rc, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (rc, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and by Brandy L Bond. (rc, ) |
| MAILED the Clerk's Notice entry along with the Joint Consent Form to Plaintiff Brandy L Bond. (rc, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Direct assignment. (rc, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (rc, ) |
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.
