Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Kendall Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 2284 DATE 5/17/2012

CASE

TITLE

Jordan vs. Provena

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Jordan’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied but his case is dismissed for failure to state

a claim.

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

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Melza E. Jordan Sr. (“Jordan”) moves to proceed in forma pauperis without the full

prepayment of filing fees. For the reasons stated below, Jordan’s Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis is denied.

Jordan attempts to bring a cause of action against the Provena St. Joseph Medical Center; Daniel

Knight, in his individual capacity as an employee of Provena; Sarah E. Quigley, in her individual

capacity as an employee of Provena; Timothy R. Hall, in his individual capacity as an employee of

Provena; and Dr. Devassi, in his individual capacity as an employee of Provena, for violations of

his civil rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Jordan claims that Provena and its employees entered

into a conspiracy to detain him against his will in the Psychiatric Ward of Provena, and thereby

violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may authorize Jordan to proceed in forma pauperis if he is

unable to pay the mandated court fees. Jordan need not be penniless to proceed in forma pauperis

under § 1915(a)(1). See Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7th Cir. 1980). Instead, he is eligible to

proceed in forma pauperis if payment of the filing fee will prevent him from providing for life’s

necessities. See id. According to his financial affidavit, Jordan is currently unemployed but was

employed by Caterpillar Tractor Inc., from March 28, 1968 to sometime in 1982. Jones earned

$612.00 in salary over the past twelve months. Also within the past twelve months, Jordan received

$28,123.00 in pension payments, social security payments, and disability payments. Jordan has

$7,400.00 in a checking or savings account. He owns stocks, bond, securities, or other financial

12C2284 Jordan vs. Provena Page 1 of 3

Case: 1:12-cv-02284 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:30
STATEMENT

instruments in the amount of $175,000.00, which he represents has a current value of $125,000.00.

Jordan owns real estate, namely his personal residence, which he represents has a current value of

$150,000.00. Jordan also owes a car with a current value of $21,065.00. Based on these facts, Jordan’s

financial affidavit does not set forth his inability to pay the mandated court fees.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must look beyond Jordan’s financial status to determine whether

he has a valid claim to proceed. Section 1915 requires the Court to review the claims of a plaintiff

who seeks to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails

to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or if the plaintiff seeks damages from a defendant

who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)‐(iii); see also Lindell v. McCallum, 352

F.3d 1107, 1109 (7th Cir. 2003). When evaluating whether a plaintiff has stated a claim in the context

of an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court applies the same standard as that

for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Allen v. JP Morgan Chase, 2010 WL 1325321 at *1 (N.D.

Ill. 2010) (citing Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000)).

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all facts alleged in

the complaint and construes all reasonable inferences in favor of the non‐moving party. See

Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank, 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670

(7th Cir. 2006)). To properly state a valid claim, the complaint must contain a “short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

“Detailed factual allegations” are not required, but the plaintiff must allege facts that, when

“accepted as true ... ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To determine

whether a complaint meets this standard the “reviewing court [must] draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. If the factual allegations are well‐pleaded, the

Court assumes their veracity and then proceeds to determine whether they plausibly give rise to an

entitlement to relief. Id at 679. A claim has facial plausibility when its factual content allows the

Court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See id.

at 678. However, “courts should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a

cause of action or conclusory legal statements.” Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009).

Here, Jordan alleges that the Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) by conspiring to deprive him

of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful seizure and his Fourteenth Amendment

right to “the equal protection of the laws to be free of arbitrary and capricious involuntary

detainment.” Jordan alleges that the Defendants conspired to detain him in the psychiatric ward of

the Hospital against his will and with the intent to subject him to psychiatric drugs and to

fraudulently seize money from his medical insurance carrier. To support his allegations that the

Defendants were conspiring with each other to deprive him of his constitutional rights, Jordan

places his own affidavit into his complaint, reciting facts that he believes support his claims.

Although § 1985(3) generally does not require state action in the commission of a conspiracy, it

does when the plaintiff’s allegations of conspiracy result from an alleged violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment. See Cohen v Illinois Institute of Technology, 524 F.2d 81 (7th Cir. 1975). In a §

1985(3) suit for conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth

12C2284 Jordan vs. Provena Page 2 of 3

Case: 1:12-cv-02284 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:31
STATEMENT

Amendment, the plaintiff must show that the constitutional violation resulted from impairment by

the state itself (or its actors operating under color of state law). See id. Likewise, the Fourth

Amendment does not protect against purely private searches or seizures, even arbitrary or

unreasonable ones, unless the private party is acting as an instrument or agent of the government.

See Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executivesʹ Assʹn, 489 U.S. 602, 614 (1989); see also Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The protections of the Fourth

Amendment apply to federal officials, and have been incorporated through the Fourteenth

Amendment to apply to the actions of state officials as well. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961);

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949). But the protections only extend to state sponsored searches and

seizures, and not to wholly private seizures, which is what is alleged in the instant Complaint. See

Skinner, 489 U.S. at 614. In Spencer v. Lee, the Seventh Circuit held that private physicians and

private hospitals do not act under color of state law when they involuntarily commit an individual

to the psychiatric ward of a hospital. 864 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir. 1989). Because the constitutional

provisions that Jordan alleges the defendants conspired to violate require state action, which is not

present on these facts, Jordan’s Complaint fails to state a plausible entitlement to relief and is

dismissed. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Jordan’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied but his case is dismissed for failure to state

a claim.

12C2284 Jordan vs. Provena Page 3 of 3

Case: 1:12-cv-02284 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:32