Stacks v. Fritsch et al

Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GRATES STACKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JILL FRITSCH, STEPHANIE PEREZ,
and CARITAS FAMILY SOLUTIONS,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:25-CV-1933-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
0Plaintiff Grates Stacks, proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
on October 17, 2025, against Defendants Caritas Family Solutions, Jill Fritsch, a foster care
case worker, and Stephanie Perez, a foster care supervisor. (Doc. 1). The case is now
before the Court on Stacks’s Motion to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees
or Costs (Doc. 3) and Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 5).
Normally, the fee for filing a complaint and opening a civil case is $405.00. Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), however, an indigent party may commence a federal court action
without paying required costs and fees by submitting an affidavit asserting his inability
to pay the fees, the nature of the action, and the affiant’s belief that he is entitled to
redress. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Destitution is not required to proceed without prepaying
fees or costs; an affidavit demonstrating that the plaintiff cannot, because of his poverty,
provide himself with the necessities of life is sufficient. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours
& Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948).
Case 3:25-cv-01933-NJR Document 11 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 6
Here, the Court is satisfied from Stacks’s affidavit that he is indigent. Stacks states
that he is incarcerated at the Coles County Jail, he has no wages or income, and he has no
cash or money in a checking or savings account. He also has four dependents. As Stacks
is unable to pay the filing fee, his Motion to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Doc. 3) is granted.
Because Stacks is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee, the Court must
now screen his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismiss the Complaint
if it is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money damages
against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320
F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003) (“District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous
or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal
expense.”).
In reviewing the Complaint, the undersigned is mindful that courts construe pro
se claims generously. Buechel v. United States, 746 F.3d 753, 758 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court
accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013). Conclusory statements and labels,
however, are not enough. The Complaint must allege enough facts to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 421 (7th Cir.
2013). That means “a plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in
the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her
that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir.
2010). Instead, “the plaintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case
Case 3:25-cv-01933-NJR Document 11 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 6
to present a story that holds together.” Id. at 404.
Here, Stacks alleges that he went to prison in 2021 and was released on March 27,
2024. (Doc. 1). Upon his release, he went to the home of his wife, Chelsea Stacks, 1 in
Effingham, Illinois. (Id.). When the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services
(“DCFS”) and Defendant Caritas Family Solutions visited Chelsea’s home to speak with
her about her son (from a different relationship), they noticed Stacks was there. (Id.).
DCFS and Caritas Family Solutions then made false accusations to Effingham County’s
State’s Attorney that Stacks was living with Chelsea, that he abused his son, C.G., and
that both Chelsea and Stacks were aware that Stacks was not supposed to have contact
with Chelsea and the children. (Id.). Stacks claims there is no signed document by any
court indicating he is not supposed to have contact with these individuals. (Id.). DCFS
and Caritas Family Solutions also reported to the State’s Attorney that Stacks had a past
history of sex abuse or sex crimes, that Chelsea has a known substance abuse history
including marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, that Chelsea failed to provide adequate food
for one of the children, and that Chelsea failed to take “said minor child to [a] required
specialist for GI issues” and to follow the minor’s diet. (Id.).
At a temporary custody hearing on April 15, 2024, Stacks alleges, the State could
not prove these allegations and an Illinois State Circuit Judge found both Stacks and
Chelsea “not guilty of the reasoning DCFS and Caritas Family Solutions put into the
report.” (Id.). During the hearing, however, the State’s Attorney filed a new charge of
domestic abuse against Stacks. (Id.). Specifically, Stacks was alleged to have broken
1 For clarity purposes, the Court refers to Ms. Stacks as “Chelsea.”
Case 3:25-cv-01933-NJR Document 11 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 6
Chelsea’s arm in March 2024, even though Chelsea testified that nothing happened. (Id.).
Moreover, although the State’s witness testified that Chelsea told the witness that her
right arm was broken, “when Chelsea Stacks questioned [the witness] about this call, [the
witness] could not tell the court when or where it happened.” (Id.).
Although the State’s Attorney did not provide any evidence of domestic abuse,
the judge stated that DCFS and Caritas Family Solutions did not need to provide physical
evidence to prove that domestic abuse had occurred. The judge further stated that he did
not believe Chelsea’s testimony that nothing happened. Instead, the judge relied on
Stacks’s prior conviction for domestic abuse from 2019 for support that he committed
domestic abuse again in 2024. (Id.). Stacks claims this is a violation of the Double Jeopardy
Clause. (Id.).
As relief, Stacks asks that the minor children be returned to both parents in
addition to punitive and compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million.
DISPOSITION
To succeed on a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff “must prove
(1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and (2) that the
defendants were acting under color of state law.” Wilson v. Warren Cnty., Illinois, 830 F.3d
464, 468 (7th Cir. 2016). Additionally, “lawsuits against individuals require personal
involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation to support a viable claim.” Palmer
v. Marion Cnty., 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003) “Without evidence of personal
involvement, the named individual defendants cannot be liable under § 1983.” Colbert v.
City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017).
Case 3:25-cv-01933-NJR Document 11 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 6
Here, although Jill Fritsch and Stephanie Perez were named as individual
defendants, the Complaint does not allege that they were acting under color of state law
or that they were personally involved in any purported constitutional violation. In fact,
the body of the Complaint does not mention them whatsoever. Because the Complaint is
devoid of any allegations as to Defendants Fritsch and Perez, they will be dismissed. See
Bostic v. Murray, No. 23-1665, 2025 WL 3248684, at **5-6 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025) (personal
involvement requires “at least some causal connection or affirmative link between the
action complained about and the official sued”).
As to 	Caritas Family Solutions, 2 	Stacks 	claims 	that 	it 	made 	several 	false
accusations to the Effingham County State’s Attorney about both him and Chelsea that
led to the temporary custody hearing on April 15, 2024. While a “false accusation” or
“fabricated evidence” claim may implicate a due process claim, the essence of such a
claim “is that the accused was convicted and imprisoned based on knowingly falsified
evidence, violating his right to a fair trial and thus depriving him of liberty without due
process.” Patrick v. City of Chicago, 974 F.3d 824, 835 (7th Cir. 2020). Here, however, Stacks
has alleged that the Circuit Judge found both Stacks and Chelsea “not guilty” of the
reasoning put into the report by Caritas Family Solutions. Thus, Stacks was afforded due
process, the judge did not find the accusations credible, and any false accusations by
Caritas Family Solutions cannot be said to have caused a constitutional deprivation.
2 Although Stacks has not alleged that Caritas Family Solutions is a state actor, the Court presumes that it
is for the purpose of this Order.
Case 3:25-cv-01933-NJR Document 11 Filed 12/10/25 Page 5 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 6 of 6
Because Stacks has not alleged any viable constitutional claim against Caritas Family
Solutions, it will be dismissed as a defendant.
Finally, Stacks alleges that the Circuit Judge improperly relied on his prior
domestic abuse conviction to support the State’s Attorney’s new charge of domestic
abuse and did not require Caritas Family Solutions to provide any physical evidence that
Stacks physically abused Chelsea. The judge, however, is not a named defendant in this
case, and even if he were, he would be absolutely immune from suit as a judge. Wilson v.
Stewart, 621 F. Supp. 3d 900, 914 (N.D. Ill. 2022) (citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,
355–56 (1978) (“It is well settled that judges are absolutely immune from damages for
their judicial acts[.]”).
For these reasons, the Court finds that Stacks has failed to state a claim for any
constitutional violation by a state actor under § 1983. His Complaint will therefore be
dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The Motion to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs filed by
Plaintiff Grates Stacks (Doc. 3) is GRANTED, but his Complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to state a claim. Stacks’s Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 5) is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	December 10, 2025
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01933-NJR Document 11 Filed 12/10/25 Page 6 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>