Dixon v. Franklin et al

Filing 4

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Blanche M. Manning on 2/13/2012: Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application 3 is denied without prejudice. Within 30 days of the date of this order, he must either prepay the $350 filing fee or sub mit a completed application. The clerk is directed to send to Plaintiff an in forma pauperis application. Additionally, Plaintiff must show cause why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of his previously filed suit before this court, Di xon v. Schafer, 11 C 6860 (N.D. Ill. ) (Manning, J. ). If Plaintiff does not address the filing fee and demonstrate why his current claims may be brought in this separate case, this case will be summarily 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

Blanche M. Manning

CASE NUMBER

12 C 243

CASE TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

February 13, 2012

Lamonte Dixon, Jr. (K-96013) v. Johnnie Franklin, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application [3] is denied without prejudice. Within 30 days of the date of this order,
he must either prepay the $350 filing fee or submit a completed application. The clerk is directed to send to
Plaintiff an in forma pauperis application. Additionally, Plaintiff must show cause why this case should not be
dismissed as duplicative of his previously filed suit before this court, Dixon v. Schafer, 11 C 6860 (N. D. Ill. )
(Manning, J. ). If Plaintiff does not address the filing fee and demonstrate why his current claims may be
brought in this separate case, this case will be summarily dismissed.

O

Docketing to mail notices.

[For further details see text below.]

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Lamonte Dixon, a Pontiac Correctional Center inmate, has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in this
court concerning discipline at the Stateville Correctional Center. Plaintiff states that he was disciplined at Stateville
for intimidation and insolence toward Dr. Scheafer. According to the disciplinary reports attached to his complaint,
Plaintiff said to Dr. Schaefer, “I’m going to shoot you” as he was dissatisfied with Dr. Schaefer’s treatment of his
hand. Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive a fair hearing on the disciplinary charge and that Hearing Officers Lt.
Johnnie Franklin and Daphne Walker ruled against him to retaliate against him because he had previously filed
grievances or suits against them. Plaintiff states that he filed additional grievances about the allegedly unfairly
discipline, that Sergeant Franklin (a different officer, not Officer Johnnie Franklin) failed to investigate Plaintiff’s
grievances, and that Grievance Officer Anna McGee, Warden Marcus Hardy, Administrative Review Board Member
Sherry Benton, and Illinois Department of Corrections Director Salvador Godinez all denied Plaintiff due process
when they either failed to investigate or denied his grievances about unfair discipline.
Plaintiff’s complaint in this case appears to raise the same or related claim presented in a prior case he filed
in this court. Dixon v. Schaefer, 11 C 6860 (N.D. Ill.) (Manning, J.). In case no. 11 C 6860, Plaintiff alleged that he
was wrongfully disciplined for allegedly saying he was going to shoot Dr. Schaefer. Although Plaintiff’s current suit
names several parties that were not named in the prior suit, the cases appear to involve the same disciplinary charge
and grievances and the same due process and retaliatory allegations about the disciplinary proceedings. The claims
in the instant suit and in his prior suit thus appear so related that they should be brought in the same case.
This court has broad discretion to determine when joinder is appropriate. See Thompson v. Boggs, 33 F.3d
847, 858 (7th Cir. 1994). Such discretion “ “promote[s] judicial economy by permitting all reasonably related claims
for relief by or against different parties to be tried in a single proceeding under the provisions of Rule 20.” Ward v.
Gaetz, No. 10-640-GPM, 2011 WL 577381 at *1 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2011) (Murphy, J.), quoting 7 Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1653 (3d ed. 1998 & Supp.2010). Before
allowing the current case to proceed, Plaintiff must demonstrate that his current claims are not related to his claims
in case no. 11 C 6860, such that they may be properly brought in a separate case (as opposed to Plaintiff seeking to
amend the complaint in 11 C 6860 to add the additional claims included in this case).
(CONTINUED)
isk

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT (continued)
In addition to clarifying whether the instant suit should be separate from his prior one, to proceed with this case,
Plaintiff must also resolve the filing fee issue. He must either prepay the $350 filing fee or submit a completed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) application. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), an inmate must pay the $350 filing
fee for each § 1983 suit he brings in this court. If he is unable to prepay the filing fee, he must submit a completed IFP
application to pay the fee in installments. The application must be on this court’s form, and must include both a
certificate from an authorized officer attesting to the amount of funds in the inmate’s account and a copy of the inmate’s
“trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding
the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner
is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). These documents are necessary for the court to determine whether the
inmate qualifies as a pauper and to assess an initial partial payment of the filing fee. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
application is not on the court’s form and does not contain a completed certificate. Accordingly, his request to proceed
IFP is denied. If he chooses to proceed with this case, he must submit a completed application or prepay the fee.
In conclusion, if Plaintiff wants to proceed with this case, he must, within 30 days of the date of this order: (1)
either pay the $350 filing fee or submit a completed in forma pauperis application, and (2) submit an amended
complaint that sufficiently demonstrates why his claims should be brought in a suit separate from his case no. 11 C
6860. Failure to comply with this order within 30 days may be construed as Plaintiff’s desire not to proceed with this
case and will result in dismissal of this action. The clerk is directed to send to Plaintiff an in forma pauperis
application and an amended complaint form, along with a copy of this order.

Page 2 of 2