UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

WILLIAM PEED, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 23-3155 ) TIONA FARRINGTON, et al. ) ) Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Lincoln Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now before the Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. The Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in the plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour,

(7th Cir. 2013). Conclusory statements and labels are insufficient—the facts alleged must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. U.S.,

(7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Plaintiff alleges that he meets the criteria for release from custody under the Joe Coleman Act.1 He alleges that the nurse who conducted an assessment pursuant to the Act concluded that

1 The Court assumes Plaintiff is referencing the Joe Coleman Medical Release Act, Ill. Pub. Act 102-0494. The Act authorizes the Prisoner Review Board to grant early release from custody for medical incapacity or terminal illness. See 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 5/3-3-14; 5/3-3-15. he did not meet any of the requirements, and, therefore, the Prisoner Review Board denied his application for medical release. Plaintiff seeks release from custody and monetary compensation. A habeas corpus action is the exclusive remedy for individuals seeking an immediate or speedier release from custody. Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). Plaintiff also

does not allege any violations of federal law that would make jurisdiction appropriate in this Court. See

. If Plaintiff is alleging that prison officials violated state law, he must pursue this action in state court. Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel (Doc. 4) Plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in this case. In considering the Plaintiff’s motion, the court asks: (1) has the indigent Plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself? Pruitt v. Mote,

(7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has not shown that he made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel on his own. A

plaintiff usually does this by attaching copies of letters sent to attorneys seeking representation and copies of any responses received. Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong, the Court does not address the second. Plaintiff’s motion is denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel [4] is 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) This dismissal may count as one of the plaintiff's three allotted “strikes” pursuant to

(g). The Clerk of the Court is directed to record Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log. 4) Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his case has been dismissed. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order. 5) 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 $505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. Entered this 31st day of July, 2023.

s/Sara Darrow SARA DARROW CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE