Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de735> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de735 RegisterActionDate "2020-11-29" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de735 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence of prior acts and statements reported by Plaintiff during incarceration and his post-conviction court-mandated sex offender group therapy 549 . Plaintiffs allege these statements are inadmissible because, as Plaintiff's parole could have been revoked when the statements were made, they were involuntary, compelled statements without Miranda warnings. (Dkt. 549 at 12). In doing so, Plaintiffs rely upon the criminal exclusionary rule 549 . Plaintiff brings civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1 . The exclusionary rule does not apply to civil suits brought under § 1983. Martin v. Marinez, 934 F.3d 594, 59899 (7th Cir. 2019). Unlike in criminal proceedings, the need for deterrence in suits such as these is minimal because the exclusionary rule would merely prevent state actors from defending themselves against claims for monetary damages. Moreover, nothing in Plaintiff's proffer indicates the statements were involuntary. Other than citing unidentifiable sources of "prison gossip," Plaintiff offers no justification or explanation for his stated belief that he would be sent back to prison if he didn't accept responsibility for Trunko's murder. (Dkt. 580 -4 at 82:1185:15). Mr. Goatley did not tell Plaintiff successful completion of sex offender counseling required confession to the Trunko murder. (Dkt. 580 -5 at 73:817, 83:1115). Neither did Mr. Goatley have the authority to revoke Plaintiff's mandatory supervised release. (Dkt. 532 at 4-5). Further, Mr. Goatley testified he would not terminate Plaintiff's treatment solely for his refusal to accept responsibility for Trunko's murder. (Dkt. 532 at 4-5). Finally, Plaintiff was not returned to prison even when he knowingly violated the terms of his mandatory supervised release several times by lying to his parole agent (Dkt. 580 -4 at 125:17128:14), by violating his movement schedule (Dkt. 580 -4 at 130:1018, 135:9136:11), and by drinking alcohol (Dkt. 580 -4 at 137:123). Plaintiff's motion 549 is denied. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 11/29/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de735 AdministrativeID "735" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de735 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de0 @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de735 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de532 @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de735 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de549 @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de735 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de580 @default.