Res

No, 02 C 8433 Page3

defendants or by any state court as to the fate of plaintiff's dog. Plaintiff does not allege that
he has challenged the decisions of the officer or the welfare center in any forum prior to filing
this complaint, As such, this dispute is not ripe and this is not the proper forum for this
litigation.

While plaintiff does not specifically allege Fourth Amendment violations in his
complaint, we read his complaint liberally to say that his rights were violated when his
property was searched and seized. Even so, plaintiff cannot state a constitutional injury
arising from defendants’ conduct. He does not allege that he was wrongfully convicted of any
charges or that any evidence was used against him improperly, and cannot state a Fourth
Amendment claim. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 n.7 (1994).

Because plaintiff has not pursued his state remedies his claim is not ripe. We deny
plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his complaint without

prejudice.

JAMES B. MORAN
Sertior Judge, U. S. District Court
Que. X_, 2002.



L, ‘Minute Oper Form (06/97)

DS —(. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

@)

Na f Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Other
vor Magieerate Judge James B. Moran Gan Ansigued Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 8433 DATE 12/2/2002
CASE Todd Steven Adams vs. Blue Island Animal etc. et al.
TITLE
[Ii the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:

ql) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

OOFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) CIFRCP41(a)(2).

dismiss his complaint without prejudice.

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon____—ssetfor__—_at

(5) Qo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_setfor__—_ at.

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___setfor__——at__—.
(7) QO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

(8) i) (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__at

(9) Qa This case is dismissed {with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

ao (Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Because plaintiff has not pursued his
state remedies his claim is not ripe. We deny plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and

(1) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,
No notices required. umber of notices
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. DEC g 3.2002
ov | Docketing to mail notices. CO
of _| Mail Ao 450 form. 1YNO9 LIYLSIO “Sn deceting deputy iis
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. wu319
m Bel Wd 2-990 CO | sre miet on
WAH deputy's aad
intais Dore dtvcahs 11
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



~e

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
TODD STEVEN ADAMS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 02 C8433
) xed
BLUE ISLAND ANIMAL CONTROL ) ane WL
OFFICER, ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE, _) wr
et al. ) co
° v
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this complaint against defendants alleging violations of his civil rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising from an arrest for animal cruelty and subsequent seizure
ofhis dog. Along with his complaint, plaintiff files an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
For the following reasons, plaintiff's application is denied and his claim is dismissed without
prejudice.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a) the court may authorize a plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis if he is unable to pay the prescribed court fees. Plaintiff's attached affidavit states
that he has not been employed since April 2002, has no significant money in any checking or
savings accounts, and his only material possession is a van with a value of approximately $500.
We find that plaintiff has established his inability to pay the required court costs.

However, our inquiry does not end here. Section 1915 requires us to conduct an initial
review of plaintiff's claim and dismiss the action if we find that the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim or seeks damages from a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C.

5



No. 02 C 8433 Page 2

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-Giii); Alston v. Debruyn, 13 F.3d 1036, 1039 (7% Cir. 1994). In determining
whether plaintiff states a claim we apply the same standard as though this were a motion to
dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Zimmerman y. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7 Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Greg Kirpach, an animal control officer, took his dog
when plaintiff was arrested on charges of animal abuse. Defendant Kirpach then allegedly
took the dog to defendant Animal Welfare League and the dog has not yet been returned,

Charges against plaintiff for animal cruelty were subsequently dismissed. He has previously

filed a suit against police officers and defendant Kirpach alleging Fourth Amendment

violations arising from the taking of the dog and other property belonging to plaintiff. Adams

y. Connors, 2002 WL 1827632 (N.D. Ll. 2002), in which defendants’ motion for summary
judgment was granted because of qualified immunity. Plaintiff now seeks damages pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fifth Amendment property right and substantive
due process rights arising from the taking of the dog and other of plaintiff's personal property.

In order to maintain a § 1983 action arising from a Fifth Amendment takings claim, the
Seventh Circuit requires that plaintiffs first take their claim to state court and exhaust all
possible state remedies, Daniels v. Area Plan Com’n of Allen County, 306 F.3d 445, 453 (7*
Cir. 2002). This inquiry is the same regardless of whether plaintiff characterizes the suit as
a Fifth Amendment violation or a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Id, at 453,n.5. Moreover, the Supreme Court has determined that unauthorized
deprivation of property, whether intentional or unintentional, does not constitute a violation
of due process when a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available. Hudson v. Palmer,

468 U.S. 517, 533 (1983). It does not appear as though there has been any final decision by