Nelson v. Stewart
3:12-cv-00642
S.D. Ill.Jul 9, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Larry Nelson filed a §1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference from events at Menard Correctional Center while incarcerated.
- Nelson is no longer incarcerated, but claims arise from his confinement period and sue under IFP and for counsel.
- Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel.
- Court evaluated under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) for frivolousness, failure to state a claim, or immunity; complaint must show plausible claim.
- Court concluded Nelson’s IFP motion shows indigence and his claims survive screening; the action is not frivolous or malicious, and defendants are not immune.
- The court granted pauper status, denied appointment of counsel at this stage, and ordered service procedures and pre-trial referrals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IFP dismissal standards apply to this complaint | Nelson's IFP status should proceed given indigence and non-frivolous claims | Court must dismiss if frivolous or fails to state a claim | IFP status granted; claims survive screening |
| Whether the complaint plausibly states §1983 claims | Alleges deliberate indifference and excessive force against named defendants | Claims may be too conclusory or implausible | Complaint survives plausibility review at this stage |
| Whether counsel should be appointed for Nelson | Requests counsel due to complexity and claims | No automatic right to counsel; evaluation needed | Denied at this stage; may be revisited later |
| What pre-trial procedures and notices are required | Plaintiff to provide service and address updates | Defendants must receive service; enforceable | Court orders service forms, address updates, and reporting requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court 1989) (frivolous or baseless claims may be dismissed)
- Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (plausibility standard applied to complaints)
- Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009) (liberal pleading standard but not bare assertions)
- Brooks v. Ross, Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009) (avoid conclusory recitations in pleadings)
- Romanelli v. Suliene, Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2010) (early-stage case complexity affects counsel-appointment analysis)
- Santiago v. Walls, Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (consider plaintiff's ability to litigate at early stage)
- Pruitt v. Mote, Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (best practices for appointing counsel in pro se cases)