Wright v. People Of The State Of Illinois et al
Filing
4
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 12/10/2012: Petitioner is granted thirty days in which either to file an in forma pauperis application on the enclosed form with the information required by 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(a)(2) or pay the full $350 civil filing fee. The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner an i.f.p. application along with a copy of this order. Failure of Petitioner to comply within thirty days of the date of this order will result in summary dismissal of this case. Petitioner is advised that he must provide the court with the original plus a judge's copy of every document filed. [For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice.(mr, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
REBECCA R. PALLMEYER
CASE NUMBER
12 C 9504
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
December 10, 2012
Eugene Wright (#B-09564) vs. People of the State of Illinois, et al.
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:
Petitioner is granted thirty days in which either to file an in forma pauperis application on the enclosed form with
the information required by 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(a)(2) or pay the full $350 civil filing fee. The Clerk is directed to
send Petitioner an i.f.p. application along with a copy of this order. Failure of Petitioner to comply within thirty
days of the date of this order will result in summary dismissal of this case. Petitioner is advised that he must
provide the court with the original plus a judge’s copy of every document filed.
O [For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
Petitioner, an Illinois state prisoner, has filed a pro se mandamus petition purportedly pursuant to 735
ILCS 5/14-101. Although the grounds for the petition are not entirely clear, Petitioner seeks an order compelling
the judge who presided over the state criminal proceedings to grant Petitioner a new trial.
Petitioner has failed either to pay the statutory filing fee or to file a petition for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires all inmates to pay the full filing fee, even those whose cases
are summarily dismissed. In all prisoner civil lawsuits, the court must assess an initial partial filing fee. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The court will direct correctional officials to deduct the initial filing fee payment directly
from Petitioner’s trust fund account. Thereafter, correctional authorities having custody of Petitioner will be
authorized and ordered to make monthly payments to the court of 20% of the preceding month’s income credited
to the trust fund account until such time as the full filing fee is paid.
To enable the court to make the necessary assessment of the initial partial filing fee, Petitioner must
“submit a certified copy of the 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). Therefore,
(CONTINUED)
mjm
Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT (continued)
if Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case by making installment payments instead of paying the full filing fee
in advance, he must file an in forma pauperis application on the form required by the rules of this court, together
with a certified copy or copies of his trust fund statements reflecting all activity in his accounts in the past six
months [that is, from May 28, 2012, through November 28, 2012].
Petitioner must, within thirty days, either file an in forma pauperis application on the enclosed form with
the information required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) or pay the full $350 filing fee. The Clerk will furnish Petitioner
with an in forma pauperis application along with a copy of this order. Failure of Petitioner to comply within thirty
days of the date of this order will result in summary dismissal of this case.
Petitioner is encouraged to perform some basic legal research prior to deciding whether to pursue this
matter. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, district courts have jurisdiction in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer
or employee of the United States and federal agencies to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. A mandamus action
against a state official would belong in state court. Furthermore, as a general rule, the only avenue for challenging
a state conviction in federal court is by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Among other prerequisites, habeas petitioners are required to exhaust state court remedies before seeking relief
in federal court. As Petitioner is currently confined at Stateville’s Reception and Classification Center, it would
seem that he has only recently been convicted and sentenced. Petitioner may therefore wish to consider filing an
appeal and/or an appropriate action in the state court system rather than pursuing relief under the guise of a federal
mandamus petition.
Finally, Petitioner is reminded that he is required to provide the court with the original plus a judge’s copy
of every document filed.
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?