Boclair v. Compliance Manager et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STANLEY BOCLAIR, #A60451, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 24-cv-01924-SMY
)
PREA COMPLIANCE MANAGER, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, Chief District Judge:
Plaintiff Stanley Boclair, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)
currently housed at Hill Correctional Center, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
constitutional deprivations that allegedly occurred at Menard Correctional Center. Along with his
original Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
(Doc. 2), seeking leave to litigate without prepayment of the Court’s usual $405.00 filing fee for
this civil case. The Court granted the IFP motion (Doc. 9), and Plaintiff has paid $33.72 toward
his filing fee to date.
The Complaint (Doc. 1) and Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) did not survive screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 	(Doc. 20). 	Plaintiff was granted leave to replead his claims in an
amended complaint. 	Id. 	He filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 24), along with several
miscellaneous motions (Docs. 21, 22, and 25). 	Before the Court screens the Second Amended
Complaint under § 1915A, it must revisit Plaintiff’s request for IFP status.
The Court has learned that Plaintiff accumulated three “strikes” within the meaning of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prior to filing this case. According to the Public Access to Court Electronic
Records (“PACER”) website (www.pacer.gov) and this Court’s electronic docket, the following
Case 3:24-cv-01924-SMY Document 26 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
cases count as “strikes” because they were dismissed as being frivolous or for failure to state a
claim: Bolair [sic] v. Page, No. 99-cv-00223-GPM (S.D. Ill. dismissed August 16, 1999 as
frivolous)1 (Docs. 5, 6); Boclair v. Baldwin, No. 17-cv-01422 (N.D. Ill. dismissed April 28, 2017)
(Doc. 14); and Boclair v. Baldwin, No. 17-cv-02998 (N.D. Ill. dismissed June 19, 2017) (Doc. 6).
See Boclair v. Crain, et al., No. 24-cv-02371-SMY (S.D. Ill.) (Doc. 15).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil judgment
without prepayment of the fee “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated
or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because Plaintiff “struck out” under § 1915(g) before filing this case, he is
subject to the “three strikes” bar.
Plaintiff may not proceed IFP in this case unless he satisfies the “imminent danger”
provision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This requires a “real and proximate” threat
of serious physical injury to a prisoner. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003).
“Allegations of past harm do not suffice” to show imminent danger; rather, “the harm must be
imminent or occurring at the time the complaint is filed.” Id. at 330.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff describes three encounters with another inmate at Menard
Correctional Center. 	On January 23, 2024, Inmate Russell allegedly pressed his private parts
against Plaintiff’s buttocks as the two inmates passed one another in a narrow hallway leading
from the prison’s commissary. On February 6, 2024, Inmate Russell allegedly grabbed Plaintiff’s
buttocks with the palm of his hand as the inmates made their way back from the prison yard. The
1 Plaintiff’s correct IDOC prisoner number accompanies his misspelled name on the Court’s docket sheet in
Case No. 99-cv-00223-GPM.
Case 3:24-cv-01924-SMY Document 26 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
following day, on February 7, 2024, Inmate Russell allegedly reached into Plaintiff’s cell and
grabbed his buttocks as he walked back from the shower. Id. Plaintiff filed the original Complaint
six months later, on August 19, 2024, and his First Amended Complaint on October 2, 2024, before
notifying the Court of his transfer to a different facility in November 2024. See Doc. 15. He filed
his Second Amended Complaint many months after transferring out of Menard. See Doc. 24.
Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury
at the time he filed this lawsuit. The alleged harm occurred in January and February 2024, and he
filed suit in August 2024. Plaintiff did not complain about continued contact with Inmate Russell
at the time, and he transferred out of the prison shortly after amending the Complaint the first time.
Thus, Plaintiff has not overcome the “three strikes” bar and should not have been granted IFP
status in this case.
DISPOSITION
For the forgoing reasons, the Court REVOKES Plaintiff’s IFP status in this case as
improperly granted and DISMISSES as MOOT three pending motions addressing incomplete
filings, including a Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (Doc. 21), Motion to Obtain Access
to the Court (Doc. 22), and Motion to Correct the Record (Doc. 25). Plaintiff must pay the balance
of the full filing fee if he wishes to proceed with the Second Amended Complaint. 	Therefore,
Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the remaining balance of the $405.00 filing fee for this action within
thirty (30) days from entry of this Order (on or before April 24, 2026). As of the date of this
Order, Plaintiff’s balance due is $371.28.
The Court DEFERS screening of the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 24) until Plaintiff
pays the balance due. He is WARNED that failure to do so by the deadline will result in dismissal
of this action for non-compliance with the Court’s Order and for failure to prosecute his claims.
Case 3:24-cv-01924-SMY Document 26 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
See FED. R. C IV. P. 41. 	Additionally, payments will be deducted from Plaintiff’s prisoner trust
account in accordance with § 1915(b) until the $405.00 fee is paid in full, as described in the Order
at Doc. 9.
Plaintiff is reminded that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk and each
opposing party informed of any change in his address, and that the Court will not independently
investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than fourteen (14) days
after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in a dismissal of this action for want
of prosecution.
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that if he seeks to proceed IFP in a future civil rights action
while he is in prison, he must disclose the cases resulting in the assessment of a “strike” and also
satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to proceed IFP.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 25, 2026
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01924-SMY Document 26 Filed 03/25/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>