UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JERRY L. GATES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 19-4079 ) JAMES T. DIMAS, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a civil detainee at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility (“Rushville”) is requesting leave to proceed under a reduced payment procedure for indigent plaintiffs who are institutionalized but are not prisoners as defined in

(h). The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the District Court’s sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc.,

(7th Circ. 1972). Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid.

(d)(2). Accordingly, this court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal action. In reviewing the complaint, the court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in the plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour,

(7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. U.S.,

(7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted). The court has reviewed the amended complaint and has also held a merit review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a chance to personally explain his claims to the court. Plaintiff alleges that he is not provided adequate access to Rushville’s law library, that the law library is not sufficient, that he is not able to print out documents he saves to his flash drive, and that the non-legal library “has only a few books with out-date thing nothing new.” Plaintiff does not have a right to a law library and he cannot prevail solely on the basis that the law library at the facility in somehow inadequate. Lewis v. Casey,

(1996). To state a claim, an inmate must “demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id.; Marshall v. Knight,

(7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has not alleged how these obstacles have prevented him from pursuing a meritorious legal claim. Further, the fact that the TDF does not regularly update its library book selection does not independently suggest TDF officials have interfered with his First Amendment right to read. It is therefore ordered: 1) Plaintiff’s petitions to proceed in forma pauperis [4][7] are denied. 2) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any amendment to the Complaint would be futile. This case is therefore terminated. All pending motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. 3) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. Entered this 25th day of June, 2019 /s/ Harold A. Baker _____________________________________ HAROLD A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE