Baltimore v. Mt. Vernon Police Department et al

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ELISA BALTIMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MT. VERNON POLICE DEPARTMENT
and MT. VERNON STATE’S
ATTORNEY,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:25-CV-2172-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for screening of the pro se Complaint for Violation
of Civil Rights filed by Plaintiff Elisa Baltimore. (Doc. 3). Although Baltimore has paid
the filing fee, “[d]istrict judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently
defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense.” Hoskins
v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003). “This is so even when the plaintiff has paid
all fees for filing and service.” Id.; see also Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999)
(“[D]istrict courts have the power to screen complaints filed by all litigants, prisoners and
non-prisoners alike, regardless of fee status.”).
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts all well-pleaded 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
Case 3:25-cv-02172-NJR Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 4
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 to present a story that holds
together.” Id. at 404. Under Rule 12(e), a court may order a party to provide a more
definite statement when the original pleadings are “so vague or ambiguous” that the
opposing party cannot reasonably be required to frame a response. Mitchell v. Elec. Beach
Tanning Salon Ltd., No. 18 C 7475, 2019 WL 1077127, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2019).
In 	her 	Complaint, 	Baltimore 	alleges 	that 	Defendants 	violated 	her 	First
Amendment right to access information and the Fourth Amendment guarantee against
unlawful searches and seizures. (Doc. 3). Baltimore claims that on July 30, 2025, Mount
Vernon police “forcefully entered” one of her properties while she was out of town. (Id.).
She then states: “I went to retrieve it the next day from State’s Attorney Office, I was told
to get it from son’s lawyer, which he did not have, and who was already in the county
jail. I ask to speak to state, I was told I would be escorted out by deputy. . . . Also, filed
FOIA, received no such record exists.” (Id.). As relief, she seeks actual damages for her
property 	and 	punitive 	damages 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$500,000 	for 	malicious 	police
misconduct. (Id.). Baltimore also states that she is “looking for someone to help me,”
which the Court construes as a motion for recruitment of counsel.
The undersigned is mindful that courts construe pro se claims generously. Buechel
v. United States, 746 F.3d 753, 758 (7th Cir. 2014). And a pro se litigant is not required to
explicitly refer to a statute or explain a legal theory in order to state a cause of action, as
long as relief is possible under some statute or theory consistent with the facts pleaded.
Case 3:25-cv-02172-NJR Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 4
Kennedy v. National Juvenile Detention Ass’n, 187 F.3d 690, 695 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied,
120 S. Ct. 1169 (2000); Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 977 F.2d 1129, 1134 (7th Cir. 1992).
At this point, however, the Court cannot discern whether Baltimore has stated a
claim under the facts she has pleaded. Baltimore alleges that Mount Vernon police
forcefully entered one of her properties, but she has provided no information to indicate
the search was unlawful. She also states that she went to retrieve an item, which the Court
presumes the police took from her property, but she does not provide any facts that
would demonstrate the seizure was unconstitutional. Baltimore mentions her son who
was in the county jail, but it is unclear whether her son was arrested as a result of the
alleged unlawful search and seizure. Finally, Baltimore alleges that she filed a Freedom
of Information Act request, but it is unknown what information she requested and from
whom. In other words, Baltimore has not given enough details about the alleged incident
to present a story that holds together. Swanson, 614 F.3d at 404. As a result, Defendants
cannot reasonably be required to respond to the Complaint.
For these reasons, the Court orders Baltimore to amend her Complaint to provide
a more definite statement of the facts she is alleging. The Court encourages Baltimore to
review 	the 	Court’s 	resources 	for 	pro 	se 	litigants, 	which 	can 	be 	found 	at:
https://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se-litigant. In particular, the
Court encourages Baltimore to review the American Bar Association’s Handbook for Pro
Se Litigants, which explains how to draft a complaint in federal court. Along with the
amended complaint, Baltimore must prepare a summons for each named Defendant and
return the summonses to the Clerk of Court for issuance. She then has 90 days to complete
service of process on the Defendants.
Case 3:25-cv-02172-NJR Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 4
Finally, with regard to Baltimore’s request for “someone to help [her],” the Court
notes that civil litigants do not have a right, either constitutional or statutory, to court-
appointed counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007). Rather, district courts
are empowered to recruit an attorney to represent a plaintiff without charge when she is
“unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Seventh Circuit has instructed
courts to consider two factors when determining whether recruitment of counsel is
warranted: (1) whether the plaintiff has made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or
been effectively precluded from doing so; and (2) given the difficulty of the case, whether
the plaintiff appears competent to litigate it himself. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654. Here,
Baltimore has not provided the Court with any evidence demonstrating that she is unable
to afford an attorney, that she has attempted to obtain counsel on her own, or that she is
incapable of litigating the case pro se. Accordingly, to the extent Baltimore is requesting
recruitment of counsel, that request is denied without prejudice.
For these reasons, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff Elisa Baltimore to amend her
complaint to provide a more definite statement of her case on or before February 5, 2026.
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff blank summons forms to be filed with
her amended complaint and a form motion for recruitment of counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	January 5, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02172-NJR Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>