Hall v. Dart et al

Filing 5

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable James B. Zagel on 6/10/2013: The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is granted. The court authorizes and orders the trust fund officer at the plaintiff's place of incarce ration to begin making monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Cook County Jail. However, the complaint is summarily dismissed with prejudice on initial review for "fraud" on the court. The case is terminated. Any other motions pending are denied as moot. Mailed notice [For further details see opinion.](mgh, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

James B. Zagel

CASE NUMBER

13 C 4125

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/10/13

Lance Eugene Hall (#2013-0414176) vs. Thomas Dart, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [#3] is granted. The court authorizes and orders the trust fund
officer at the plaintiff’s place of incarceration to begin making monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The clerk
is directed to send a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Cook County Jail. However, the complaint is
summarily dismissed with prejudice on initial review for “fraud” on the court. The case is terminated. Any other motions
pending are denied as moot.

O [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
The plaintiff, currently in custody at the Cook County Jail, has brought this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff claims that as a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces, he is entitled to
minimum wage for the work he does at the jail in the laundry. The plaintiff also makes claims regarding the
conditions at the jail.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and his initial partial filing fee is
waived. According to the statement submitted with his in forma pauperis application, Plaintiff has neither
available funds nor means to pay the initial partial filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). As 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(4) requires that a prisoner not be prohibited from bringing suit because of inability to pay, the initial
partial filing fee is waived. The trust fund officer at the correctional facility where Plaintiff is confined is
authorized 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
$400 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District Court, 219 S. Dearborn
St., Chicago, IL 60604, attn: Cashier's Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly identify Plaintiff's name and the case
number assigned to this action. The inmate trust account office at Cook County Jail shall notify transferee
authorities of any outstanding balance in the event Plaintiff is transferred from the jail to another correctional
facility.
However, the court finds that the plaintiff made a material omission to the court. Page 3 of the civil rights
complaint form the plaintiff submitted required him to “List ALL lawsuits you (and your co-plaintiffs, if any)
have filed in any state or federal court in the United States.” The complaint form further states: “IF YOU HAVE
FILED MORE THAN ONE LAWSUIT, THEN YOU MUST DESCRIBE THE ADDITIONAL LAWSUITS ON
ANOTHER PIECE OF PAPER, USING THIS SAME FORMAT. REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY CASES
YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY FILED YOU WILL NOT BE EXCUSED FROM FILLING OUT THIS SECTION
(CONTINUED)
AWL

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
COMPLETELY, AND FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF YOUR CASE.” (emphasis
in original).
Notwithstanding the court’s admonition, the plaintiff only partially identified only one previously filed
lawsuit on this page, without giving it a case number. The plaintiff also signed the “CERTIFICATION” at the end
of the complaint, confirming, “By signing this Complaint, I certify that the facts stated in this Complaint are true
to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that if this certification is not correct, I may be
subject to sanctions by the Court.”
Contrary to what the plaintiff certified by signing his complaint, he has filed nine suits in 2013, Hall v.
Hickerson, et al., Case No. 13 C 0395 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel, J.); Hall v. Dart, et al., Case No. 13 C 0396 (N.D. Ill.)
(Zagel, J.); Hall v. Hickerson, et al., Case No. 13 C 0398 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel, J.); Hall v. Dart, et al., Case No. 13
C 0400 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel, J.); Hall v. Dart, et al., Case No. 13 C 0402 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel, J.); Hall v. Dart, et al.,
Case No. 13 C 3661 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel, J.); Hall v. Director IDOC, et al., Case No. 13 C 3662 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel,
J.); Hall v. Dart, et al., Case No. 13 C 3888 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel, J.); and the present case. Plaintiff is presently
litigating two of these lawsuits in this court: Hall v. Dart, et al., Case No. 13 C 3661 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel, J.), and Hall
v. Director IDOC, et al., Case No. 13 C 3662 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel, J.), in addition to the case at hand.
The court may impose sanctions on a pro se litigant if the litigant provides false information to the court,
effectuates a fraud on the court, and/or fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See Hoskins v. Dart,
663 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Hoskins instructs that a district court may require a prisoner to disclose
all prior litigation history and the Court may dismiss the case with prejudice when the failure to disclose the history
is done with intent to commit a fraud upon the Court. Hoskins, 663 F.3d at 543. The Court has the right to make
plaintiffs disclose prior litigation history because it must review that history to determine plaintiff’s status under
the PLRA.
In light of the number of recently filed–and currently pending–cases that the plaintiff had filed prior to the
instant action, his failure to identify any of the previous lawsuits cannot be attributed to inadvertence or mistake.
The plaintiff’s omissions, which can be characterized as a “fraud” on the court, justify dismissal of this action with
prejudice. See Sloan, 181 F.3d at 859; see also Taylor v. Chicago Police Dep’t, No. 07 C 5097, 2008 WL 2477694
at * 4 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2008) (Dow, J.) (plaintiff’s failure to identify at least five previous lawsuits on the
complaint form justified dismissal).
For the foregoing reasons, this suit is summarily dismissed with prejudice for “fraud” on the court. 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 non-meritorious, the
plaintiff may also be assessed a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under that statute, 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