Opinion
No. 02 C 7639
January 3, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Paul Knox filed a complaint against officers of the Crestwood Police Department alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising from an arrest and subsequent detention for possession of narcotics. Along with his complaint plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which is denied, and an application for appointment of counsel, which is also denied.
We may authorize a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis if he demonstrates an inability to pay the required costs and fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). We must also conduct an initial review of plaintiff's claim and dismiss the action if we determine that it is frivolous or malicious, it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or petitioner seeks damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Alston v. Debruy, 13 F.3d 1036, 1039 (7th Cir. 1994). We evaluate plaintiff's claim using the same standards as we would for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000).
While plaintiff failed to attach a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis, he did attach a sworn statement claiming that he has no significant income, has no money in any savings or checking accounts and owns no property. Based on this affidavit, we find that plaintiff has adequately demonstrated his inability to pay the court costs.
Plaintiff names three officers of the Crestwood Police Department as defendants. Reading the claim liberally, plaintiff alleges that these officers targeted him because of his race, arrested him based on the possession of heart medication, and then conspired to prevent him from taking this medicine, resulting in damage to his health.
To the extent that plaintiff's claims are based on the search and subsequent arrest, if the defendants were acting in good faith and with a reasonable belief in the validity of the search and arrest, the police officers have a valid defense to the § 1983 claims and are immune from damages, even if there was not probable cause in the constitutional sense. Boscarino v. Nelson, 518 F.2d 879, 881-82 (7th Cir. 1975). To the extent that plaintiff's claims are based on the denial of his medication, he may state a cognizable constitutional claim. There is not enough information in plaintiffs complaint, however, to allow us to make this determination.
Plaintiff alleges that his medication was seized at the time of his arrest and that subsequent requests to take his medication were denied, resulting in his hospitalization. It is unclear to us which of the defendants, if any, was responsible for denying plaintiff his medication or the reasons that they gave for these denials. Moreover, it is unclear why plaintiff was held by the police and if any charges against plaintiff were ever filed.
Plaintiff may be able to amend his complaint and file the proper forms to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. At this time he does not sufficiently allege a violation of his constitutional rights as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and his complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, and his application for appointment of counsel is denied.