Order Form (0172008) C&
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois .

Name of Assigned Judge Charles R. Norgle Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 € 2999 DATE S-Z Y-/2—-

CASE TITLE Walter Powell (B-51121) v. Judge Portman

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiffs complaint and amended complaint are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. His motion to proceed in
forma pauperis {3] and his motion for the appointment of counsel [9], as well as any other pending motion, are
denied. The dismissal of this case shall not count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This case is closed.

@ (For further details see text below.] Citable Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Walter Powell, incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center, has filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint against Cook County Circuit Court Judge Portman for placing a condition on Plaintiff's bond prohibiting
him from using public transportation. Plaintiff further contends that Judge Portman impermissibly sentenced him
to six months confinement when he “had words with her in the court.” (Doc. #5, Amended Compl. at 4.) Plaintiff
seeks $500,000 compensation from Judge Portman.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this court must conduct an initial review of a complaint filed by an inmate and
dismiss the complaint if it states claims that are frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which this
Court can grant relief, or if it seeks monetary relief from parties who are immune from such damages. Judges have
absolute immunity from civil suits for actions taken in their role as judges. Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 442
(7th Cir. 2006), citing John v. Barron, 897 F.2d 1387, 1391-92 (7th Cir. 1990), citing Samp v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.
349, 356-357 (1978). Plaintiff's claims against Judge Portman involve judicial decisions in Plaintiff's criminal case.
Even if those decisions were improper, as Plaintiff claims, Judge Portman is entitled to absolute immunity from civil
suit. Plaintiff cannot pursue his civil suit for money damages or other relief against Judge Portman.

Additionally, given that Plaintiff's criminal case is still pending, this court is prohibited from interfering
with those proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53 (1971) (federal courts generally may not interfere
with pending state criminal proceedings). Plaintiff's instant case seeks to challenge the decisions of a state court
judge in this court through a § 1983 suit. This court, however, is not a super state court that can consider such
challenges. See Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994) (“a party losing in state court is barred from
seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based
on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights”); see also Carter v. Carter,
__F. Supp. 2d _, No. I l-cv-4433, 2012 WL 1574302 at *2 (C.D. Ill. May 7, 2012) (Mills, J.). Plaintiff may be
able to raise his claims in a state appellate court; however, he cannot raise them here at this time. To the extent
Plaintiff seeks to contend that he is in custody pursuant to an unconstitutional state court ruling, he may be able to
raise sucha claim ina federal petition for habeas corpus relief, but only after he has exhausted state court remedies.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This court, however, cannot grant relief in a § 1983 civil rights case that would in affect the
validity of his confinement. Heck y. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484, 487 (1994). Nor may this court convert
Plaintiffs § 1983 action to a petition for habeas relief. Copus v. City of Edgerton, 96 F.3d 1038, 1039 (7th Cir.
1996). Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. Because it appears that Plaintiff simply filed his claims in the
wrong court, the dismissal shall not count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(CONTINUED) _

isk

Page | of 2



STATEMENT (continued)

Plaintiff's in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application is incomplete as it does not contain a copy of his prison trust
fund account statement in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (inmates and detainees seeking to file a suit IFP,
must submit an application and include “a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional
equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint”). Although
this court usually allows a plaintiff to cure defects in his IFP application, in this case, where it is clear that Plaintiff's
claims cannot proceed in this court and that he apparently has filed his claims in the wrong court, allowing him to
submit a completed application would prolong this case and run counter to one of the purposes of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, which seeks to reduce frivolous and meritless prisoner litigation. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 US. 81, 93-94
(2006) (“The PLRA's purpose is to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prison suits”); see also Phipps v.
Sheriff of Cook County, 681 F. Supp. 2d 899, 906 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (“Congress passed the PLRA as part of an ‘effort
to address the large number of prisoner complaints filed in federal court’ . . .The purpose behind the legislation was
to reduce the number of suits brought by prisoners by separating meritorious claims from frivolous ones.”), citing

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202 & 204 (2007).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the complaint and amended complaint are dismissed, the IFP

application is denied, and this case is dismissed. All other pending motions are denied. This case is closed.

‘T COURT

an
=
=
a:
=)
NG
ool

2
S
a
3

201

Page 2 of 2