Opinion
23-2348
02-20-2024
JUSTIN L. DALCOLLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANTHONY WILLS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Submitted February 16, 2024 [*]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 23-cv-000828-SpM Stephen p. McGlynn, Judge.
Before MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
ORDER
Justin Dalcollo, a prisoner at Lawrence Correctional Center in Illinois, has sued over two dozen prison staff to challenge prison conditions, his allegedly wrongful conviction, and other asserted acts. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court screened and properly dismissed his amended complaint for failure to state a claim; we thus affirm.
Dalcollo's amended complaint is unclear but appears to seek relief based on three broad categories. First, he contests his prison conditions. He asserts that prison staff have celled him with officers who intend to kill him, forced him to take estrogen, denied him law library access, and impeded him from filing grievances. Second, he alleges that he was wrongly tried and convicted, and as a result, is enslaved in violation of his civil rights. Finally, he asserts that the defendants have tampered with witnesses, obstructed justice, bribed officials, embezzled federal funds, and trafficked humans. The only allegations that Dalcollo appears to tie to the defendants concern his conviction.
The district court dismissed Dalcollo's original complaint for failure to state a plausible claim for relief, gave Dalcollo leave to amend it, and when the amended complaint did not cure the defect, the court dismissed it as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court observed that, for the majority of the allegations in the amended complaint, Dalcollo did not attribute them to any particular defendant or state when or where the alleged incidents occurred; he thus denied the defendants fair notice of the claims. For the allegations that Dalcollo tied to the defendants, the court ruled that they appeared to contest Dalcollo's underlying, intact conviction; thus a claim for damages arising from it was blocked by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1993).
Dalcollo raises no cogent argument on appeal; as a result, we could dismiss his appeal. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2001); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A). But we prefer to decide cases on the merits when we can, and we do so here. See Boutros v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., LLC., 802 F.3d 918, 924 (7th Cir. 2015).
We review a dismissal based on lack of fair notice for abuse of discretion, see Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 796-97 (7th Cir. 2011), and the district court did not abuse its discretion here. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The primary purpose of this requirement "is to give defendants fair notice of the claims against them and the grounds supporting the claims." Stanard, 658 F.3d at 797. Dalcollo's amended complaint, the district court reasonably ruled, fails to meet this requirement: By raising wide-ranging allegations without attributing them to any defendant, Dalcollo deprived the defendants of fair notice of what he accused them of doing, despite having received a chance to cure this defect. Without a "plain statement" of a claim, Dalcollo failed to state a claim for relief. See Taha v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Loc. 781, 947 F.3d 464, 469 (7th Cir. 2020).
The district court also properly dismissed Dalcollo's wrongful-imprisonment claim. Although Dalcollo ties this claim to the defendants, the relief he seeks is not now available. An award of damages would necessarily imply the invalidity of his intact conviction, and under Heck, he may not pursue a claim for damages unless and until his conviction has been set aside or invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. And if Dalcollo seeks release from state prison, he must file a proper petition for collateral relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and comply with the procedural and exhaustion requirements, rather than invoke § 1983, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
For purposes of future proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this affirmance for failure to state a claim is a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED
[*] The defendants were not served with process and are not participating in the appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appellant's brief and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. p. 34(a)(2)(C).