Taylor v. Baker et al
Filing
6
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable John Z. Lee on 3/26/2013: The plaintiff's motion for leave to file in forma pauperis # 3 is granted. However, the complaint is summarily dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to disclose his prior liti gation. The case is terminated. The plaintiff's motion for assistance of counsel # 4 is denied as moot. The trust fund officer at the plaintiff's place of confinement is authorized and ordered to make deductions from the plaintiff's account and payments to the clerk of court in accordance with this order. The clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Pontiac Correctional Center. (For further detail see written opinion.) Mailed notice.(ym, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
JOHN Z. LEE
CASE NUMBER
13 C 1931
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
3/26/13
Kennado Taylor (#M-25370) vs. Officer Baker, et al.
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:
The plaintiff’s motion for leave to file in forma pauperis [#3] is granted. However, the complaint is summarily
dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to disclose his prior litigation. The case is terminated. The plaintiff’s motion
for assistance of counsel [#4] is denied as moot. The trust fund officer at the plaintiff’s place of confinement is
authorized and ordered to make deductions from the plaintiff’s account and payments to the clerk of court in
accordance with this order. The clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the
Pontiac Correctional Center.
O [For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
The plaintiff, currently an Illinois state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, correctional officers at the Cook County Jail, violated
the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by using unjustified force against him and denying him needed medical care
for his injuries.
The court finds that the plaintiff is unable to prepay the filing fee. Accordingly, the court grants the
plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the plaintiff has a negative balance in his prison trust
account, the initial partial filing fee is waived pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). However, the trust fund officer
at the plaintiff’s place of incarceration is authorized and ordered to begin collect monthly payments from the
plaintiff’s trust fund account in the amount of 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the account. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Monthly payments shall be forwarded to the clerk of court each time the account balance
exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid. Id. Separate deductions and payments shall be made with
respect to each action or appeal filed by the plaintiff. 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 the plaintiff’s name and this case number.
(CONTINUED)
jjd
Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT (continued)
However, the plaintiff has made a material omission to the court. The court’s civil rights complaint form
instructed the plaintiff to “List ALL lawsuits you . . . have filed in any state or federal court (including the Central
and Southern Districts of Illinois).” (Complaint, p. 3, emphasis in original.) The form goes on to direct, “IF YOU
HAVE FILED MORE THAN ONE LAWSUIT, THEN YOU MUST DESCRIBE THE ADDITIONAL
LAWSUITS. . . . REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY CASES YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY FILED, YOU WILL
NOT BE EXCUSED FROM FILLING OUT THIS SECTION COMPLETELY, AND FAILURE TO DO SO MAY
RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF YOUR CASE.” (Id.)
Despite the court’s admonitions, the plaintiff wrote “N/A,” failing to mention any of the at least ten prior
federal lawsuits he has filed. The plaintiff cannot reasonably claim a lack of memory, as six of those cases settled
just days before he initiated this action. The plaintiff’s effective “fraud” on the court justifies “immediate
termination of the suit.” Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit has affirmed dismissal for failure of an inmate plaintiff to fully disclose his litigation history. See
Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543-44 (7th Cir. 2011). The plaintiff is cautioned that in signing court filings, he
is representing that the statements he makes are true to the best of his knowledge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Before
submitting any motions or pleadings to the court, the plaintiff should accordingly review the documents carefully
to make sure they are complete and accurate.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is summarily dismissed for perpetration of a fraud on the court.
However, having brought this action, the plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.
§1915(b)(1); Sloan, 181 F.3d at 859. Before pursuing any future litigation, the plaintiff must pay any outstanding
fees. Id.
If the plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a notice of appeal with this court within thirty
days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set
forth the issues the plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the plaintiff does
choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $455 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. Evans
v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 150 F.3d 810, 812 (7th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, if the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, the dismissal may count as one of the plaintiff’s three allotted dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The plaintiff is warned that if a prisoner has had a total of three federal cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or failing to state a claim, he may not file suit in federal court without prepaying the filing fee unless
he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id.
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?