Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/2713534/Meeks-v-City-of-Alton-Police-Department-et-al-Document-No-6
Timestamp: 2019-08-19 12:04:41
Document Index: 503131715

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 566', '§ 1997', '§ 636']

Meeks v. City of Alton Police Department et al - Document No. 6 | Service Of Process | Summons
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier. Defendant City of Alton Police Department terminated. Denying 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 2/5/07. (hbs) 3:2007cv00082 Illinois Southern District Court
saveSave Meeks v. City of Alton Police Department et al - D... For Later
VKT-v-VWS-Hawaii-Part 2
Christine Sinicki-Credit Card Lawsuit
CITIZENS OF HUMANITY, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY docket
United States of America, and James M. Serling, Estate Tax Attorney, Internal Revenue Service v. James M. White, as Attorney for and as of the Estate of Helen P. Smith, Deceased, 853 F.2d 107, 2d Cir. (1988)
Hart v. Salois, 10th Cir. (2015)
Ppsc Robert Prior
Remedial Law Case Digest No.3
Meeks v. City of Alton Police Department et al Doc.
Case 3:07-cv-00082-MJR-PMF Document 6 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 1 of 6
ANTJUAN L. MEEKS, Inmate #S03014,
) CIVIL NO. 07-82-MJR
CITY OF ALTON POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, OFFICER VINCENT )
WARLICK, and JOHN DOE, )
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Centralia Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is now before the Court for a
preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides, in pertinent
(a) Screening.– The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event,
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.– On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims
or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint–
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or
in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Upon careful review of the complaint and
any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that none of the claims in the complaint may be dismissed
Case 3:07-cv-00082-MJR-PMF Document 6 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 2 of 6
at this point in the litigation.
Plaintiff states that on February 13, 2005, City of Alton, Illinois, Police Officers used
excessive force in arresting him, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. When Defendant Warlick
arrived at Plaintiff’s home after a domestic dispute call, he directed an unnamed officer to “taser”
Plaintiff, who was lying naked in his bed and not resisting arrest. Defendant Warlick and two
unnamed officers handcuffed Plaintiff, took him outside, and “dropped [him] in the mud.”
Defendant Warlick told Plaintiff that he was going to “teach [him] a lesson.” Defendant Warlick
then drew his gun and hit Plaintiff in the eye with it. The unknown officers punched and kicked
Plaintiff in the face. Defendant Warlick then ordered the unknown officers to “tase” Plaintiff, which
they did repeatedly. Plaintiff states that he was “tased” so many times that he fell unconscious, and
upon arrival at the police station, he could not walk without assistance. Defendant Warlick and the
unknown officers dragged Plaintiff out of the police car and told him that if he said anything about
his treatment upon arrest, “that it would happen again.” Plaintiff was placed in a cell and given no
medical treatment for his injuries. The next day he was transferred to the Madison County Jail
where he received medical treatment. After he was placed in the custody of the Illinois Department
of Corrections, he received an examination by an optometrist, who told him that his optic nerve was
irreversibly damaged in the beating.
Claims of excessive force during an arrest are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s
“reasonableness” standard. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). In determining the
reasonableness of the force used, a Court will consider the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Case 3:07-cv-00082-MJR-PMF Document 6 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 3 of 6
severity of the crime at issue, the threat posed by the suspect to the safety of the officers or others,
and whether the suspect was attempting to resist or evade arrest. The objective reasonableness of
the officers’ response will be based upon the information the officers had at the time of the arrest.
See Lawrence v. Kenosha County, 391 F.3d 837, 843 (7th Cir. 2004). Based on these standards,
Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force by Defendant Warlick and the other unknown officer during his
arrest cannot be dismissed at this time.
The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff has not stated a claim against the City of Alton
Police Department. In order to obtain section 1983 relief against a municipality, a plaintiff must
allege that the constitutional deprivations were the result of an official policy, custom, or practice
of the municipality or municipal department. See Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of the City of
New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Forman v. Richmond Police Dept., 104 F.3d 950, 965 (7th Cir.
1997). Accordingly, the City of Alton Police Department is DISMISSED as a defendant from the
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall complete and submit a USM-285 form for
Defendants Warlick and John Does within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of entry of this
Memorandum and Order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff 3 USM-285 forms with
Plaintiff's copy of this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff is advised that service will not be made
on a defendant until Plaintiff submits a properly completed USM-285 form for that defendant.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to prepare Form 1A (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver
of Service of Summons) and Form 1B (Waiver of Service of Summons) for Defendants Warlick and
John Does. The Clerk shall forward those forms, USM-285 forms submitted by the Plaintiff, and
Case 3:07-cv-00082-MJR-PMF Document 6 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 4 of 6
sufficient copies of the complaint to the United States Marshal for service.
The United States Marshal is DIRECTED, pursuant to Rule 4(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, to serve process on Defendants Warlick and John Does in the manner specified
by Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Process in this case shall consist of the
complaint, applicable forms 1A and 1B, and this Memorandum and Order. For purposes of
computing the passage of time under Rule 4(d)(2), the Court and all parties will compute time as of
the date it is mailed by the Marshal, as noted on the USM-285 form. Service shall not be made on
the Unknown (John Doe) Defendants until such time as Plaintiff has identified them by name on
a USM-285 form and in a properly filed amended complaint. Plaintiff is ADVISED that it is
Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the Court with the names and service addresses for these
With respect to former employees of the Alton, Illinois, Police Department who no longer
can be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the City of Alton shall furnish the Marshal
with the Defendant’s last-known address upon issuance of a court order which states that the
information shall be used only for purposes of effectuating service (or for proof of service, should
a dispute arise) and any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Marshal.
Address information obtained from the City of Alton pursuant to this order shall not be maintained
in the court file, nor disclosed by the Marshal.
The United States Marshal shall file returned waivers of service as well as any requests for
waivers of service that are returned as undelivered as soon as they are received. If a waiver of
service is not returned by a defendant within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of mailing the
request for waiver, the United States Marshal shall:
Case 3:07-cv-00082-MJR-PMF Document 6 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 5 of 6
! Request that the Clerk prepare a summons for that defendant who has not yet
returned a waiver of service; the Clerk shall then prepare such summons as
! Personally serve process upon the defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 566(c).
! Within ten days after personal service is effected, the United States Marshal shall file
the return of service for the defendant, along with evidence of any attempts to secure
a waiver of service of process and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting
service on said defendant. Said costs shall be enumerated on the USM-285 form and
shall include the costs incurred by the Marshal’s office for photocopying additional
copies of the summons and complaint and for preparing new USM-285 forms, if
required. Costs of service will be taxed against the personally served defendant in
accordance with the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) unless the defendant shows
good cause for such failure.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve upon defendant or, if appearance has been entered by
counsel, upon that attorney, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for
consideration by this Court. He shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of
the Court a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of any document was mailed to
defendant or his counsel. Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge which has not
been filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
complaint, and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this cause is REFERRED to a United States Magistrate
Judge for further pre-trial proceedings.
Further, this entire matter is hereby REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for
disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all the parties
consent to such a referral.
Case 3:07-cv-00082-MJR-PMF Document 6 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 6 of 6
Plaintiff is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk and each opposing party informed
of any change in his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than seven (7) days
after a transfer or other change in address occurs.
Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3).
When deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court must first determine if a pro se litigant has
made reasonable efforts to secure counsel before resorting to the courts. Jackson v. County of
McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1072 (7th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff makes no showing that he has attempted to
retain counsel. Therefore, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
DATED this 5th day of February, 2007.
Documents Similar To Meeks v. City of Alton Police Department et al - Document No. 6
(PS) Breiner v. The Regents of the University of California et al - Document No. 4
Petition-for-Certiorari-65.docx
Tagolino v HRET and Lucy Torres