Robinson v. Sweeny et al

Filing 5

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 9/17/2012: Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [# 3 ] is granted. The trust fund officer at Plaintiffs place of confinement is authorized to make deductions from his accoun t in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall issues summonses for service of the complaint on Cook County Deputy Sheriffs Essex and Sweeny, Superintendents Moreci and Thomas, and Tom Dart. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff Instructions for Submitting Documents, along with a copy of this order. Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel [# 4 ] is denied. Mailed notice. (ea, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Joan H. Lefkow

CASE NUMBER

12 C 6609

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

September 17, 2012

Ronald Robinson (#2011-0418159) vs. Sheriff Sweeny, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [#3] is granted. The trust fund officer at Plaintiff’s place of
confinement is authorized to make deductions from his account in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall
issues summonses for service of the complaint on Cook County Deputy Sheriffs Essex and Sweeny,
Superintendents Moreci and Thomas, and Tom Dart. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff Instructions for Submitting
Documents, along with a copy of this order. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [#4] is denied.
O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff, Ronald Robinson, a pre-trial detainee at the Cook County Jail, has brought this pro se civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that although he is in protective custody, on August 25,
2011, while being transferred to the Markham Courthouse for a hearing in his underlying criminal case, he was
forced by Deputy Sheriff Sweeny, to ride an elevator down to lock-up with general population inmates. He was
subsequently attacked and injured by a detainee by the name of Antonio Burnes and had to be treated at the
hospital for the injuries he received. Sheriff’s deputy Essex knew Plaintiff was not supposed to be transported
in proximity to general population detainees, but did nothing to prevent it. He further alleges that he is
deliberately placed in danger every time he is transferred to court because Superintendents Moreci and Thomas
continue to place him in proximity to general population detainees during transfer. As to Defendants Dart and
the Executive Director of the Cook County Jail, Plaintiff alleges that the deliberate indifference to his safety is
part of a custom and policy of placing protective custody detainees in proximity with general population
detainees.
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application indicates that he cannot prepay the $350 filing fee. The court
thus grants his IFP motion and assesses an initial partial filing fee of $7.67. 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
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 plaintiff’s account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding
month’s 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, and Cook County Jail officers shall notify transferee authorities of any
outstanding balance if he is transferred.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt initial review of prisoner complaints
against governmental entities or employees. Here, accepting Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, the Court finds
12C6609 Robinson (#2011-0418159) vs. Deputy Sheriff Sweeny, et al.

Page 1 of 3

STATEMENT
that the complaint states a colorable cause of action under the Civil Rights Act against Defendant Spears for
deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. See, e.g., Rapier v. Harris, 172 F.3d 999, 1002 (7th
Cir. 1999), relying on Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979).
With respect to Plaintiff’s claim that he suffered a retaliatory transfer to the Marion County Jail, Illinois
statutes specifically provide that pretrial detainees may be transferred to any facility “whenever [the county
department of corrections] determines that such transfer or recommitment would promote the welfare or
rehabilitation of the prisoner, or that such transfer or recommitment is necessary to relieve overcrowding.” 55
ILCS § 5/3-15003(b). Plaintiff has no liberty interest in remaining in a particular correctional facility. Nash v.
Litscher, 50 Fed Appx. 317 (7th Cir. 2002). Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim relating to the
transfer.
The Clerk shall issue summonses for service of the complaint on Defendants Sweeny, Essex, Moreci,
Thomas, and Dart (hereinafter, “Defendants”). While plaintiff names the Director of the Cook County Jail, he
does so by title and not by name. In order to avoid problems with service, the Court will not issue summons to
the Director of the Cook County Jail. Rather, once Plaintiff has obtained service on Defendants, and an attorney
has entered an appearance on their behalf, Plaintiff may send defense counsel interrogatories (that is, a list of
questions) eliciting information regarding the identity of the Director of the Cook County Jail. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33. After Plaintiff learns the Defendant’s identity, he may again ask leave to amend the complaint to substitute
their names for those of the John Does. Summons will then issue for service on the Defendant in interest.
Plaintiff is advised that there is a two-year statute of limitations for civil rights actions; he should therefore
attempt to identify the Director of the Cook County Jail as soon as possible. See Worthington v. Wilson, 8 F.3d
1253, 1256-57 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cr. 1980). The Clerk shall
also send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a
copy of this order.
The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve Defendants. Any service forms necessary for
Plaintiff to complete will be sent by the Marshal as appropriate to serve Defendants with process. The U.S.
Marshal is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve Defendants. With respect to any former jail employee
who can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the Illinois Department of Corrections
shall furnish the Marshal with Defendant’s last-known address. The information shall be used only for purposes
of effectuating service [or for proof of service, should a dispute arise] and any documentation of the address shall
be retained only by the Marshal. Address information shall not be maintained in the Court file, nor disclosed by
the Marshal. The Marshal is authorized to mail a request for waiver of service to Defendants in the manner
prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting personal service.
Plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care of the
Prisoner Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the Court with the original plus a complete judge’s copy,
including any exhibits, of every document filed. In addition, Plaintiff must send an exact copy of any Court filing
to Defendants [or to defense counsel, once an attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Defendants].
Every document filed with the Court must include a certificate of service stating to whom exact 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 or returned to Plaintiff.
Finally, Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The motion is denied. Plaintiff has no
right to counsel in a civil case. See Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010); Johnson v. Doughty,
433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). The case at the present time does not involve complex discovery or an
evidentiary hearing, and Plaintiff’s current pleadings indicate that he has the presence of mind and intellectual

12C6609 Robinson (#2011-0418159) vs. Deputy Sheriff Sweeny, et al.

Page 2 of 3

STATEMENT
capability to continue representing himself at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, his motion for the
appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 656-59. (7th Cir. 2007).
Consequently, the Court denies his motion without prejudice to renewal should the case proceed to a point that
assistance of counsel is appropriate.

12C6609 Robinson (#2011-0418159) vs. Deputy Sheriff Sweeny, et al.

Page 3 of 3