onder Farm (012008
ae - Past

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Name of Assigned sitting Judge i
noe Magistrate Judge John W. Darrah “nan Anined Judge
CASE NUMBER 12-cv-2325 DATE 4/11/12
CASE Conroy v. Chicago Police Department
TITLE

Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B\ii); and Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis Application [4] is denied.
Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [5] is therefore denied as moot. Plaintiff still remains
obligated to pay the full filing fee of $350. Before pursuing any future litigation, Plaintiff must pay any and
all outstanding fees. See statement below.

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

STATEMENT

On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff Neal Conroy filed a Complaint with an application to proceed without
paying the customary $350 filing fee. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that during the course of his arrest by the
Chicago Police Department, a “level II vest” Plaintiff wore was taken and later destroyed by the
Chicago Police Department. Plaintiff sought recovery of the vest or monetary damages, amounting to the
value of this vest. This Complaint was dismissed on March 21, 2012, for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Despite this ruling, Plaintiff Conroy has filed another Complaint, alleging the exact
same facts, as well as the facts of an entirely separate and unrelated incident, involving what he claims was
the illegal taking of a road flare Plaintiff possessed at the time of one of his arrests. Nothing in Plaintiff's
confusing and rambling “stories” (as he describes them) identify a claim whereby the Plaintiff is entitled to
relief under the law. Plaintiff's claims are wholly without merit, and Plaintiff has also failed to provide any
jurisdictional basis to support his claims.

Ifa court is presented with a case submitted with a request to proceed in forma pauperis, the court
will dismiss the case if it determines the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court applies the same standard it would use to rule on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 611 (7th Cir. 2000). The court views the
complaint’s allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, draws all reasonable inferences in favor of
the plaintiff, and takes as true all well-pleaded facts and allegations in the complaint. Reger Dev., LLC v.
Nat'l City Bank, 592 F.3d 759, 764 (7th Cir. 2010). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short
and plain statement of the claim sho ing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to provide the
defendant with fair notice of the PUMPS Lai bia the grounds upon which they rest. Bell Atl. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (Twombly). To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff's claim must be
plausible, and the factual allegations Ofte @mnplai st be “enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, d th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Page | of 2



7 . . STATEMENT

Furthermore, if a case is filed before a court with a request to proceed in forma pauperis, the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action is frivolous. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). “The term ‘frivolous’ is used to denote not only a claim wholly lacking in merit but also a
suit that, for whatever reason, clearly can't be maintained. The reason might be jurisdictional.” Okoro v.
Bohman, 164 F.3d 1059, 1063 (7th Cir. 1999).

Even affording Plaintiff's Pro Se Complaint a liberal reading, it would not survive a motion to dismiss
because it fails to state any sufficient claim for relief against the Defendant, and Plaintiff submits no legal
| authority to support his Complaint. Beyond this, Plaintiff's allegations are patently frivolous and without
merit. As Plaintiff stated in his first, dismissed Complaint, and again in this present Complaint, he is “not
here to make legal arguments, only moral arguments.” (Compl. at 15.) Plaintiff has submitted no legal basis
to support his claim and fails to provide the defendant (or the Court) with fair notice of the claims alleged and
the grounds upon which they rest. Plaintiff has provided no legal or jurisdictional basis to support his claims,
and they lack merit. Because of the frivolity and Plaintiff's continued inability to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, his Jn Forma Pauperis Ay pplication is denied, and his Complaint is dismissed.

Page 2 of 2