Patterson v. Dart et al

Filing 4

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 5/30/2013: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [# 3 ] is granted. The Court orders the trust fund officer at Plaintiff's current place of incarceration to deduct $39.93 from Plaintiff's account for payment to the Clerk of Court as an initial partial filing fee. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order to the office of inmate trust fund accounts at the Cook County Jail. However, summonses shall not issue at this time. On the Court's own motion, Plaintiff is granted attorney representation. The Court grants Plaintiff assistance of counsel and hereby asks Michael K. Durkin, Storino, Ramello & Durkin, 9501 West Devon Av enue, Suite 800, Rosemont, IL 60018, to represent Plaintiff in accordance with counsel's trial bar obligations under the District Court's Local Rule 83.37 (N.D. Ill.). After investigation, appointed counsel should submit an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this complaint. If counsel is unable to file an amended complaint, he should so inform the Court. [For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice (ph, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Ruben Castillo

CASE NUMBER

13 C 3858

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

5/30/2013

Prince Patterson (#2012-0118094) v. Tom Dart, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [#3] is granted. The Court orders the trust fund officer at Plaintiff's
current place of incarceration to deduct $39.93 from Plaintiff's account for payment to the Clerk of Court as an initial partial
filing fee. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order to the office of inmate trust fund accounts at the Cook
County Jail. However, summonses shall not issue at this time. On the Court’s own motion, Plaintiff is granted attorney
representation. The Court grants Plaintiff assistance of counsel and hereby asks Michael K. Durkin, Storino, Ramello &
Durkin, 9501 West Devon Avenue, Suite 800, Rosemont, IL 60018, to represent Plaintiff in accordance with counsel's trial
bar obligations under the District Court's Local Rule 83.37 (N.D. Ill.). After investigation, appointed counsel should submit
an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this complaint. If counsel is unable to file an amended complaint,
he should so inform the Court.

O [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff, presently in custody as a pre-trial detainee at the Cook County Jail, has brought this pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to deliberate indifference to
a substantial risk of serious harm. More specifically, Plaintiff claims that on September 27, 2012, he was
attacked by other detainees in the dayroom of Division 9, and that a John Doe correctional officer closed the
interlock door, refusing to assist him. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result, he was struck several times in the back
of the head, stabbed multiple times in the eye and chest, leaving him with severe injuries including a collapsed
lung.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),
Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $39.93. The supervisor of inmate trust accounts at Stateville
is authorized and ordered 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 at
Plaintiff’s place of confinement is directed to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund account in an
amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the account. Monthly payments collected from
Plaintiff’s trust fund 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 assigned to this action. The Stateville inmate trust account office shall
notify transferee authorities of any outstanding balance in the event Plaintiff is transferred from the jail to another
correctional facility.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint.
Preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint reveals that he has stated a colorable cause of action under the Civil
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Rapier v. Harris, 172 F.3d 999, 1002 (7th Cir. 1999), relying on Bell
v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979).
(CONTINUED)
AWL

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT (continued)
However, while Plaintiff may proceed, he has failed to state a cause of action against Defendant Dart.
Plaintiff makes his claims against Defendant Dart in his supervisory capacity. Plaintiff has alleged no facts
suggesting his direct, personal involvement, as required by J.H. ex rel. Higgin v. Johnson, 346 F.3d 788, 793 (7th
Cir. 2003), inter alia. Nor has Plaintiff indicated that the alleged violation of his constitutional rights occurred at
his direction or with his knowledge and consent. Id. Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal
liability and predicated upon fault; thus, “to be liable under § 1983, an individual defendant must have caused or
participated in a constitutional deprivation.” Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005)
(citations omitted).
The mere fact that Defendant Dart holds a supervisory position is insufficient to establish liability, as the
doctrine of respondeat superior (blanket supervisory liability) does not apply to actions filed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). Section 1983 does not create collective or
vicarious responsibility. Id. Supervisors cannot be held liable for the errors of their subordinates. Birch v. Jones,
No. 02 C 2094, 2004 WL 2125416, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 22, 2004) (Manning, J.), citing Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d
871, 877 (7th Cir. 1992). “Supervisors who are merely negligent in failing to detect and prevent subordinates’
misconduct are not liable.” Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
To be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, supervisors “must know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it,
condone it, or turn a blind eye for fear of what they might see. They must in other words act either knowingly or
with deliberate, reckless indifference.” Id. In short, some causal connection or affirmative link between the action
complained about and the official sued is necessary for § 1983 recovery. Hildebrandt v. Illinois Dept. of Natural
Resources, 347 F.3d 1014, 1039 (7th Cir. 2003). Because Plaintiff has failed to state any facts suggesting that
Defendant Dart was personally involved in–or even aware of–the alleged circumstances giving rise to the
complaint, he has failed to state a claim against him.
On its own motion, because of the nature of the allegations made in Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court grants
Plaintiff attorney representation in this case. The Court hereby requests that Michael K. Durkin, Storino, Ramello
& Durkin, 9501 West Devon Avenue, Suite 800, Rosemont, IL 60018, provide Plaintiff with assistance of counsel
and represent Plaintiff in accordance with counsel’s trial bar obligations under the District Court’s Local Rule
83.37 (N.D. Ill.).
After investigation, counsel should submit an amended complaint. If counsel is unable to file an amended
complaint, he should so inform the Court.

Page 2 of 2