Widmer v. Illinois Department Of Corrections et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/10/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL WIDMER B-30985,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

12 C 7066

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court’s brief November 19, 2012 memorandum order began
this way:
This Court has been both patient and cooperative in the
effort by pro se plaintiff Michael Widmer ("Widmer")
to proceed with his self-prepared 42 U.S.C. §1983
action without prepayment of the $350 filing fee.
That is really an understatement, for despite this Court’s
careful spelling out of what Widmer must do to comply with his
obligations under 28 U.S.C. §1915 (“Section 1915”), he still has
not provided what that same memorandum order went on to describe
as “the necessary information from all institutions where he was
in custody during the six-month time frame from March 1 through
August 31, 2012.1
To review the bidding, this Court’s original memorandum
order (issued September 18, two weeks after Widmer’s Complaint
arrived in the Clerk’s Office) had specifically identified that

1

Those underlined portions of the quoted language were
emphasized in that manner in an effort to avoid any possible
misunderstanding on Widmer’s part as to what he had to furnish.

same requirement for Widmer.

Despite the clarity of that

directive, his October 1 response purportedly transmitted “trust
fund vouchers which begin on May 1, 2012 end on September 6,
2012”--but that was plainly wrong in more than one respect:
1.

All that his transmittal showed for the month of

May was a transaction statement from Stateville Correctional
Center (“Stateville”) that had only one item:

It showed a

May 1 transfer of a beginning balance of $0.05 to
Jacksonville Correctional Center (“Jacksonville”) with
nothing having been provided from the latter institution.
2.

Another transaction statement that was included,

this one from Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”),
covered only the period from June 28 through July 19--and
the only entries that reflected deposits were a June 29
transfer of $212.46 from Danville Correctional Center
(“Danville”) and a July 3 transfer from Danville in the sum
of $60.
3.

No information from Danville was provided.
Finally, another statement from Stateville showed a

single entry of September 6 (a postage payment of $0.65),
but it reflected “Total Inmate Funds of $138.12” as of the
September 6 date, without any explanation of or accounting
for how that balance came about.
Next Widmer filed a one-page hand-printed document captioned
“Leave To File Amended Complaint” on October 29, coupling that

2

with two trust fund account printouts:
1.

One came from Jacksonville and spanned the period

from June 4 through June 16, beginning with the $0.05
transfer from Stateville and ending with what were shown as
transfers to Danville.
2.

As for the second, it was from Lawrence and covered

a period that began on June 28 and went well past the
relevant six-month time frame.

That statement began with

what were shown as “intake and transfers in” from Danville
and were in amounts that matched the “Danville Corrections”
amounts at the end of the Jacksonville statement just
referred to in paragraph 1, so that it appears that Widmer’s
funds may simply have gone into and out of the Danville
account without Widmer himself having spent any time at that
institution.
All the same, up to that point Widmer had failed to present any
information at all (except for the $0.05) covering fully half of
the relevant six-month period:

the time frame from March 1

through May 31.
That prompted this Court’s swift issuance of its November 1
memorandum order, which once again defined the March 1 through
August 31 requirement called for by Section 1915.

Yet Widmer’s

next filing on November 14 was accompanied by a repeat of the
Lawrence information running from June 28 through mid-October,

3

but this time Widmer also tendered a Jacksonville statement that
ran from May 4 through June 15.
Finally, just last week Widmer lodged three more statements,
one of which came from Danville and confirmed what this Court had
surmised earlier--a simple in-and-out set of transfers.

As for

the other two statements, they were just repeats of earliertendered statements from Jacksonville and Lawrence.
In sum, despite the clarity of this Court’s repeated
instructions, Widmer has still not done the job called for by
Section 1915--both March and April 2012 are still missing.

Under

the circumstances this Court must adhere to its earlier warning
in its November 19 memorandum order:
Unless on or before December 17, 2012 Widmer either
pays the $350 filing fee or provides a full set of the
required trust fund account printouts, this action will
be dismissed promptly thereafter.
________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

December 10, 2012

4