Daniel v. Cook County et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 12/3/2012: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is granted. The trust fund officer at Plaintiff's place of confinement is authorized to make deductions from Plaintiff's trust fund account in accordance with this order. Plaintiff may proceed with is complaint against the Defendants Cook County, Sheriff Tom Dart, and Cook County Jail Supervisors Santiago and J. Findley. The clerk shall issue summonse s for service of the complaint by the U.S. Marshal; shall mail a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Cook County Jail; and shall forward to Plaintiff a consent form to proceed before a Magistrate Judge and instructions as to how file documents in this case. The Court denies Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Defendants to provide greater access to the jail's law library 5 ; however, the Court certifies that Plaintiff has cases pending before this Court and should receive reasonable access to the library as this case proceeds. Mailed notice (tlm)

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Elaine E. Bucklo

CASE NUMBER

12 C 9049

CASE TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

December 3, 2012

Alex Daniel (#2007-0087744) v. Cook County, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is granted. The trust fund officer at Plaintiff’s place of
confinement is authorized to make deductions from Plaintiff’s trust fund account in accordance with this order.
Plaintiff may proceed with is complaint against the Defendants Cook County, Sheriff Tom Dart, and Cook County
Jail Supervisors Santiago and J. Findley. The clerk shall issue summonses for service of the complaint by the U.S.
Marshal; shall mail a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Cook County Jail; and shall forward to
Plaintiff a consent form to proceed before a Magistrate Judge and instructions as to how file documents in this case.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling Defendants to provide greater access to the jail’s law
library [5]; however, the Court certifies that Plaintiff has cases pending before this Court and should receive
reasonable access to the library as this case proceeds.
O [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff, Alex Daniel, currently confined at the Cook County Jail, has filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
action against Cook County, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, and Cook County Jail Mailroom Supervisors Santiago
and J. Findley. Plaintiff alleges that, in the later part of 2011 and throughout 2012, there have been delays with
receiving mail and his legal mail has been opened outside his presence on several occasions. Plaintiff seeks to file
his complaint in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and seeks the appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff’s IFP application reveals that he cannot pay the $350 filing fee. The Court grants his motion to
proceed IFP and assesses an initial partial filing fee of $19.80. The supervisor of inmate trust accounts at his place
of confinement is authorized to collect, when funds exist, the partial filing fee from Plaintiff's trust fund account
and pay it directly 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 from Plaintiff’s account 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 of 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 Plaintiff is transferred.
The Court has conducted a review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has stated a
colorable cause of action against the Defendants. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); Rowe v. Shake,
196 F.3d 778, 782 (7th Cir. 1999); Bruscino v. Carlson, 654 F. Supp. 609, 618 (S.D. Ill. 1987) (repeated delays and
mishandling of an inmate’s mail can state a § 1983 claim). Plaintiff may proceed with his complaint against the
Defendants.
(continued)
isk

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT (continued)
The clerk shall issue summonses for service of the complaint on Defendants, and the U.S. Marshal is directed
to serve them. The Marshal shall send Plaintiff any forms necessary for the Marshal to serve Defendants. Plaintiff’s
failure to return the forms may result in the dismissal of Defendants. With respect to any Defendant no longer at the
Cook County Jail, officials there shall provide the Marshal with Defendant’s last-known addresses. The information
shall be used only for purposes of effectuating service, or to show proof of service and shall be retained only by the
Marshal. Address information shall not be kept in the court file, nor disclosed by the Marshal. The Marshal is
authorized to mail a request for waiver of service to Defendant in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)
before attempting personal service. If unable to obtain a waiver, the Marshal shall attempt to serve Defendant with
personal service.
Plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this case with the Clerk of Court in care of Prisoner
Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the original plus a judge’s copy of every document filed. Also, he must send
an exact copy of any court filing to Defendants, or their attorney once one enters an appearance. Every document
filed 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 the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. This case does not currently
involve complex issues of law, complex discovery issues, or an evidentiary hearing, and Plaintiff’s pleadings indicate
that he can represent himself competently at this time. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 656-59 (7th Cir. 2007).
As to Plaintiff’s request for greater library use, such use does not appear necessary at this time, given that his
complaint and other filings are sufficient to allow this case proceed. The Court, however, notes that reasonable access
should be provided to him as the case progresses.

Page 2 of 2