Manuel v. City of Joliet et al
Filing
5
ENTER MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 4/24/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ELIJAH MANUEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF JOLIET, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.
13 C 3022
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Elijah Manuel (“Manuel”) has tendered a self-prepared
Complaint, together with exhibits, in which he charges the City
of Joliet, its Police Department (which, because it is not a
suable legal entity, will be ignored in this case) and eight
members of its police force (two of whom are identified only by
their badge numbers) with violations of his constitutional rights
assertedly actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”).
Manuel has accompanied his Complaint with a self-prepared Motion
To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Motion”), which is in turn
supplemented by a printout reflecting transactions in his trust
fund account at the Will County Adult Detention Facility
(“Detention Facility”)1 and by what Manuel labels as a Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”).
This memorandum order is
issued to address several aspects of Manuel’s filing.
To begin with, the Petition seeks an order from this Court
1
That printout provides input for this Court’s 28 U.S.C.
§1915 (“Section 1915”) calculation.
that would bring Manuel to the courthouse “to be present and
render testimony in the above mentioned proceedings.”
relief is of course totally premature.
Such
During the period of
development of a case preparatory to trial or other disposition,
this Court conducts periodic status hearings--and for that
purpose its regular practice where persons in custody are acting
pro se is to make arrangements for such persons to participate in
those hearings telephonically.
Accordingly the Petition is
denied at this time without prejudice.
To turn to Manuel’s claims, the first order of business is
to rule on his Motion as called for by Section 1915.
For that
purpose this Court has determined from the trust fund account
printout that Manuel’s average balance for the six months
preceding suit is greater than the average monthly deposits
during that same period (see Section 1915(b)(1))--the larger
figure is approximately $45, 20% of which (id) is $9.
Accordingly the Application is granted to the extent that Manuel
need not pay the full $350 filing fee in advance, although he
must pay the entire fee in current and future installments.
Manuel is therefore assessed that initial partial payment of
$9, and the Detention Facility trust fund officer is ordered to
collect that amount from Manuel’s trust fund account and to pay
it directly to the Clerk of Court (“Clerk”):
2
Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago IL 60604
Attention: Fiscal Department
Both that initial payment and all future payments called for in
this memorandum order shall clearly identify Manuel’s name and
the 13 C 3022 case number assigned to this action.
To implement
these requirements, the Clerk shall send a copy of this
memorandum order to the Detention Facility trust fund officer.
After such initial payment, the trust fund officer at the
Detention Facility (or at any other correctional facility where
Manuel may hereafter be confined) is authorized to collect
monthly payments from Manuel’s trust fund account in an amount
equal to 20% of the preceding month's income credited to the
account.
Monthly payments collected from the trust fund account
shall be forwarded to the Clerk each time the amount in the
account exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid.
To turn now to Manuel’s substantive allegations, they are
set out in a detailed factual narrative form that is a far cry
from the “short and plain statement” called for by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2).
It would impose an extraordinary and unfair burden
on defendants to be compelled to divide up Manuel’s bulky
paragraphs into separate allegations and then to respond in kind
to his intensely factual pleading.
Although Manuel has not asked for the appointment of a
3
lawyer to represent him pro bono publico, both he and defense
counsel--to say nothing of this Court--would be far better served
if he had legal representation.
Accordingly copies of this
District Court’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel are being
transmitted to Manuel together with a copy of this opinion, so
that he may fill out and return two counterparts of the completed
form to enable this Court to act on that motion.
Manuel’s
attention is called particularly to the need to answer question 2
of the form, because our Court of Appeals requires a showing of
his efforts to obtain counsel on his own before this Court can
consider supplying him with a lawyer.
In the meantime, no summons will issue, and none of the
named defendants is required to appear or to respond to the
existing Complaint.
As and when the present Complaint may be
replaced by an Amended Complaint prepared by counsel, Manuel will
be entitled to the benefit of his original filing date.
But some
cautionary remarks are in order in that respect:
1.
Many of the allegations in Manuel’s prolix factual
statement relate to events in March 2011, more than two
years before Manuel signed the Complaint on April 10, 2013.2
2
Although nothing in Manuel’s filing speaks of the date
when he delivered his papers to the custodial authorities (so as
to get the benefit of the mailbox rule, see Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266 (1988)). Hence April 10, rather than the April 22 date
of receipt in the Clerk’s Office, is the most favorable date for
which Manuel might qualify under any circumstance.
4
Because Illinois-based Section 1983 actions borrow the
Illinois two-year statute of limitations, much of what
Manuel complains about may well turn out to be untimely
asserted.
2.
No view is expressed here as to the viability or
nonviability of Manuel’s claims in any other respect.
________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:
April 24, 2013
5
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?