Bobo v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/25/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL REESE BOBO #K80580,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (STATEVILLE),
et al.,
Defendants.

No.

11 C 4881

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Michael Reese Bobo (“Bobo”) has just tendered a 42 U.S.C.
§19831 Complaint, using the form provided by our District Court
for use by persons in custody.

There are a number of problems

with Bobo’s filing--for example:
1.

Because “a State is not a person within the meaning

of §1983” (Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
64 (1989)), the state agencies that Bobo has designated as
defendants cannot be targets of a Section 1983 lawsuit.
2.

Bobo has neither paid the $350 filing fee nor

presented an In Forma Pauperis Application (“Application”),
which if granted might permit him to proceed without full
prepayment of that filing fee (but would still obligate him
under 28 U.S.C. §1915 to pay the entire fee in future
installments).

1

All further references to Title 42’s provisions will
simply take the form “Section--.”

Under the circumstances, however, this Court is loath to
stick Bobo with the $350 fee requirement, whether in advance or
in installments, because in any event he has failed to satisfy a
precondition to bringing this action.

Under Section 1997e(a):

No action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any
other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail,
prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
And although Complaint §IV refers to Bobo’s internal complaints
that he has made to persons at Stateville Correctional Center,
where he is in custody, he does not reflect his having pursued
the matter through whatever official or body serves as the actual
decisionmaker as to his proper custodial status.2

Accordingly

both the Complaint and this action are dismissed without
prejudice.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

July 25, 2011

2

Though this Court is not itself aware of what the proper
procedural channels for that purpose would be, it plans to look
into the possibility of obtaining the information that might be
provided by a Pavey hearing (Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742
(7th Cir. 2008)) on that subject, for Bobo’s use if he were to
try again. In the meantime, however, this action cannot go
forward now.

2