-Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 676 DATE February 3, 2012

CASE

TITLE

Tyrell Jackson (R-62625) vs. James Griffith

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is granted. The Court authorizes and orders

Plaintiff’strust fund officer to deduct $19.07 fromPlaintiff’s account, and to continue making monthlydeductions

in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Stateville Correctional Center. The

Clerk shall issue summonses for service on all Defendants, and send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form

and Instructionsfor Submitting Documents. The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve Defendants.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Pro se plaintiff Tyrell Jackson, a prisoner at the Stateville Correctional Center, has brought a civil rights suit

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis [3] and complaint [1] for an initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partialfiling fee of $19.07. The trust fund officer at Plaintiff’s place of incarceration

is directed to collect, when funds exist, the partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust fund account and pay it directly

to the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, Plaintiff’s trust fund officer is authorized and

ordered to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund account in an amount equal to 20% of the

preceding month’sincome credited to the account. Monthly payments collected from Plaintiff’s trust fund account

shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing

fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago,

Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier’s Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly identify Plaintiff’s name and this case number.

The inmate trust account office shall notify transferee authorities of any outstanding balance in the event of

Plaintiff’s transfer to another correctional facility. 

Turning to the initial review of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant detectives James Griffin and Nick

Liberio ofthe Naperville Police Department violated his Miranda rights. According to Plaintiff, on April 2, 2008,

Defendants were performing a custodian interrogation of Plaintiff at the Naperville police station regarding a

murder. Plaintiff invoked his right to remain silent but the officers refused to cease their questioning. Plaintiff was

later convicted of the murder. He alleges that he would have never been arrested or convicted of murder if

Defendants had respected his Miranda rights and ceased their questioning when he invoked his right to remain

silent.

12C676 Tyrell Jackson (R62625) vs. James Griffith Page 1 of 3
STATEMENT

Plaintiff states a claim for the constitutional violation for the alleged failure to respect his invocation of his right

to remain silent and the corresponding failure to stop questioning. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250, 2260

(2010) (citing Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 103 (1975); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 474 (1966)). 

Plaintiff claims that thisresulted in both a false arrest and wrongful conviction. Aleman v. Vill. of Hanover Park,

662 F.3d 897, 905-06 (7th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); Brooks v. City of Chicago, 564 F.3d 830, 832 (7th Cir.

2009).

Although Plaintiff’s allegationsstate a claim, the statute oflimitations and the rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1994), must be considered. Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully arrest and convicted because of the

Miranda violation. The alleged violation occurred in 2008. There is a two year statute of limitations for these

violations. Draper v. Martin, __ F.3d __, Nos. 10-2837, 10-3054, 2011 WL 6880357, at *2 (7th Cir. Dec. 30,

2011) (citing 735 ILCS 5/13-202; Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 623 (7th Cir. 2007); Hilleman v.

Maze, 367 F.3d 694, 696 (7th Cir. 2004); Kelly v. City of Chicago, 4 F.3d 509, 511 (7th Cir. 1993)). The two

year statute of limitations period begins when a plaintiff is detained pursuant to legal process. Brooks, 564 F.3d

at 832 (citing Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 397 (2007)).

Here, the complaint does not set forth in detail when plaintiff was arrested and subsequently detained by legal

process. Although there likely is a statute of limitations defense to the false arrest claim, the Court cannot dismiss

on this basis at this stage of the proceedings because the elements of the defense are not evident from the face

ofthe complaint. See Best v. City of Portland, 554 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2009); Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d

1005, 1009-10 (7th Cir. 2002).

As to the alleged wrongful conviction, Plaintiff claims that he would not have been wrongfully convicted but for

the alleged Miranda violation. Under the rule of Heck, a plaintiff may not bring a Section 1983 claim when

recovery on that claim would require invalidating a conviction if the underlying conviction has not been

overturned. 512 U.S. at 486-87; Okoro v. Callaghan, 324 F.3d 488, 490 (7th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “Heck

kicks in and bars [a] civil suit”when a plaintiff “makes allegations that are inconsistent with the conviction[]

[being] valid . . . .”). Although Plaintiff raises a Heck concern by alleging that the Miranda violation resulted in

a wrongful conviction, Heck is not fully satisfied because Plaintiff does not provide the missing element of whether

or not his conviction has been overturned. Furthermore, as a general rule, dismissing on the basis of Heck at this

stage is difficult because Plaintiff may effectively plead his way around Heck at the complaint stage by remaining

“agnostic” as to whether the constitutional violation resulted in a conviction. Moore v. Mahone, 652 F.3d 722,

726 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court will leave these issues to the parties to investigate further if they so desire. 

Plaintiff is allowed to proceed with his complaint past the initial review stage.

The Clerk shall issue summonses for service on all Defendants, and send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent

Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents. The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve

defendants. Any service forms necessary for plaintiff to complete will be sent by the Marshal as appropriate to

serve Defendants with process. The U.S. Marshal is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve Defendants. 

With respect to any former City of Naperville / Naperville Police Department employee who no longer can be

found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the City of Naperville / Naperville Police Department shallfurnish

the Marshalwith Defendant’slast-known address. The information shall be used only for purposes of effectuating

service [or for proof ofservice,should a dispute arise] and any documentation ofthe addressshall be retained only

by the Marshal. Address information shall not be maintained in the Court file, nor disclosed by the Marshal. 

Plaintiff is to provide the U.S. Marshals Service with a copy of the complaint and a proper form for request of

waiver pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1). The U.S. Marshals Service is requested to mail the

complaint and appropriate papersfor waiver ofservice byfirst-classmail to the named Defendant pursuant to Rule

12C676 Tyrell Jackson (R62625) vs. James Griffith Page 2 of 3
STATEMENT

4(d)(1)(G). 

Plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care of the Prisoner

Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the Court with the original plus a complete Judge’s copy, including any

exhibits, of every document filed. In addition, Plaintiff must send an exact copy of any court filing to Defendant

[or to defense counsel, once an attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Defendant]. Every document filed

with the Court must include a certificate of service stating to whom exact copies were mailed and the date of

mailing. Any paper that is sent directly to the Judge or that otherwise fails to comply with these instructions may

be disregarded by the Court or returned to Plaintiff. 

12C676 Tyrell Jackson (R62625) vs. James Griffith Page 3 of 3