Kuna-Jacob v. Schmitt, No. 1:2022cv01033 - Document 6 (C.D. Ill. 2022)

Court Description: MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Senior District Judge Richard Mills on 2/16/2022. Case DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Any pending motions are terminated. Judgment to enter. (SEE WRITTEN MERIT REVIEW OPINION) (MAS)

Download PDF

Kuna-Jacob v. Schmitt Doc. 6 E-FILED Thursday, 17 February, 2022 11:28:41 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION THOMAS J. KUNA-JACOBS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. JUDGE ZACHARY SCHMIDT, Defendant. Case No. 22-1033 MERIT REVIEW OPINION RICHARD MILLS, United States District Judge: Thomas J. Kuna-Jacobs has filed a Pro Se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his civil rights were violated. Kuna-Jacobs moves to proceed in forma pauperis and requests the appointment of counsel. This is a merit review of the Pro Se Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) requires the Court to dismiss the case if, inter alia, the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor. See Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 1 Dockets.Justia.com 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. “[A] complaint must contain facts that are sufficient, when accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoted citation omitted). To assert a claim under § 1983, “the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of the right acted under color of state . . . law.” Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Kuna-Jacobs, an Illinois citizen, alleges Greene County Presiding Judge Zachary Schmidt violated his civil rights when he committed “public slander to the reputation of Plaintiff.” Specifically, Kuna-Jacobs alleges that Defendant “did without due cause or justification cause to be published in the Greene Prairie Press a notice that plaintiff was in ‘direct civil contempt’” and wanted by the court. Moreover, Kuna-Jacobs was charged with direct civil contempt. Kuna-Jacobs states that the proceedings were terminated in his favor in a manner indicating he was innocent. There was no cause to claim he was in direct civil contempt. As a result of this conduct, Kuna-Jacobs states that his reputation was besmirched. Kuna-Jacobs’s only allegation is that Defendant slandered him and damaged his reputation. However, slander is not actionable under § 1983. See Paul v. Davis. 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976) (“[W]e hold that the interest in reputation asserted in this 2 case is neither ‘liberty’ nor ‘property’ guaranteed against state deprivation without due process of law.”); see also Batagiannis v. W. Lafayette Cmty. School Corp., 454 F.3d 738, 742 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that there is no constitutional right to be free from defamation). Accordingly, there is no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, there is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in this case. Kuna-Jacobs identifies himself as a citizen of Illinois. The Defendant, as a Greene County Judge, undoubtedly is a citizen of Illinois. Federal jurisdiction does not exist over a slander action between two citizens of the same state. Even upon accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, the Court must conclude that Kuna-Jacobs has not stated a cognizable federal claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Ergo, this case is Dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Clerk will terminate any pending motions and enter Judgment. ENTER: February 16, 2022 FOR THE COURT: /s/ Richard Mills Richard Mills United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.