Tobias v. Dart et al

Filing 14

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 5/14/2012: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") # 12 is stricken as unnecessary as Plaintiff's prior application # 5 is sufficient. The Co urt grants Plaintiff IFP status and calculates the initial partial filing fee based upon his prior application. The trust fund officer at Plaintiff's place of confinement is directed to make deductions from Plaintiff's account in accordan ce with this order. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Cook County Jail. Plaintiff's amended complaint # 11 may proceed against Tom Dart and Superintendent Robert Lyles. The clerk shall issue summonses for service of the amended complaint on these Defendants. The other Defendants are dismissed. (For further details see written opinion.) Mailed notice (ma,)

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Marvin E. Aspen

CASE NUMBER

11 C 5913

CASE TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

May 14, 2012

Garry L. Tobias (#2011-0516134) v. Tom Dart, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [#12] is stricken as unnecessary as Plaintiff’s prior
application [#5] is sufficient. The Court grants Plaintiff IFP status and calculates the initial partial filing fee based
upon his prior application. The trust fund officer at Plaintiff’s place of confinement is directed to make deductions
from Plaintiff’s account in accordance with this order. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order to the trust fund
officer at the Cook County Jail. Plaintiff’s amended complaint [#11] may proceed against Tom Dart and
Superintendent Robert Lyles. The clerk shall issue summonses for service of the amended complaint on these
Defendants. The other Defendants are dismissed.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Garry L. Tobias (#2011-0516134), incarcerated at the Cook County Jail, has filed an amended
complaint in accordance with this Court’s April 3, 2012, order. Plaintiff alleges that he entered the jail on May 15,
2011, that he informed medical personnel upon entering that he was in need of his prescription eye drops for
Glaucoma and blood pressure medication, but that he did not receive such medications, even after repeated requests.
Plaintiff further states that he filed several grievances but received no responses in July or August 2011, and that
his request slips submitted in June and July 2011 were ignored by Superintendent Robert Lyles, the officer in charge
of Division J where Plaintiff was housed. Plaintiff names Sheriff Tom Dart, Superintendent Lyles, Cook County
Jail, as well as its “Medical Staff” and its “Executive Staff” as Defendants.
Neither the Cook County Jail, nor its medical and executive staffs are suable entities separate from Cook
County. See Castillo v. Cook County Mail Room Dept., 990 F.2d 304, 307 (7th Cir. 1993). These Defendants
are thus dismissed. However, as more fully explained in the Court’s April 3, 2012, order, Plaintiff’s assertions
about continued denial of his medications by medical personnel and Superintendent Lyles state colorable claims
that appear to be separate from claims covered by the class action suit in Parish v. Sheriff of Cook County, No. 07
C 4369 (Feinerman, J.). See (Doc. #10, Order of 4/3/12.) Accordingly, Plaintiff may proceed against Lyles and
Dart, who may provide the names of individual medical persons who were directly involved with Plaintiff’s claims
of being denied medications for months after he entered the jail.
The U.S. Marshal is appointed to serve Tom Dart and Superintendent Lyles. Any service forms necessary
for Plaintiff to complete will be sent by the Marshal. Plaintiff’s failure to return forms may result in the dismissal
of Defendants. If these Defendants are no longer employed at the Cook County Jail, officials there shall furnish
their last known addresses, which shall be used only to effectuate service, and which shall neither be kept in the
court file, nor disclosed by the Marshal. The Marshal may mail requests for waivers of service to Defendants
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). If unable to obtain waivers, the Marshal shall attempt personal service.
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (Doc. #5) indicates that he cannot prepay the $350 filing fee. The
court thus grants his IFP motion and assesses an initial partial filing fee of $5.13. The trust fund account officer
at Plaintiff’s place of confinement is authorized to collect, when funds exist, the partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s
trust fund account and pay it to the clerk of court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the trust fund officer
is directed to collect monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s
Garry L. Tobias (#2011-0516134) v. Tom Dart, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
income credited to the account. Monthly collected payments shall be forwarded to the clerk of court each time the
amount in the account exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk,
United States District Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier’s Desk, 20th Floor, and
shall clearly identify Plaintiff’s name and the case number assigned to this action. Plaintiff shall remain responsible
for this filing fee obligation, and Cook County Jail officials shall notify transferee authorities of any outstanding
balance in the event he is transferred.
Plaintiff must file all future papers concerning this action with the clerk of court in care of Prisoner
Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the court with the original plus a judge’s copy, including exhibits, of every
document filed. Copies of court filings must be sent to Defendants or their attorney, if one has entered an
appearance. All court filings must include a certificate of service stating to whom copies were mailed and the date
of mailing. Any paper that is sent directly to the judge or that otherwise fails to comply with these instructions may
be disregarded by the court and/or returned to Plaintiff.

Garry L. Tobias (#2011-0516134) v. Tom Dart, et al.

Page 2 of 2