Coleman v. Dart et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/9/2013.(kj, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MELVIN COLEMAN #B-40631,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM DART, COOK COUNTY SHERIFF,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

13 C 7127

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Melvin Coleman (“Coleman”) has utilized the printed form of
42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) Complaint provided by the
Clerk’s Office to sue Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart for the
asserted violation of Coleman’s constitutional rights while he
was detained at the Cook County Department of Corrections
(“County Jail”).1

Coleman has accompanied the Complaint with two

other Clerk’s-Office-supplied forms:

an In Forma Pauperis

Application (“Application”) and a Motion for Attorney
Representation (“Motion”).

This Court has promptly conducted the

threshold review called for by 28 U.S.C. §1915A,2 and based on
that review it dismisses both the Complaint and this action for
failure to state a viable Section 1983 claim.
Before that subject is addressed, however, a few words must
be said about the Application.

In that respect Coleman has

1

Coleman is now in state custody at the East Moline
Correctional Center (“East Moline”)--more on that subject later.
2

All further references to Title 28’s provisions will
simply take the form “Section--.”

failed to comply with the requirement of Section 1915(a)(2) that
he submit a certified copy or copies reflecting all transactions
in his trust fund account at East Moline and any other
correctional institution or institutions where he was in custody
(perhaps including the County Jail) during the six-month period
from April 1 through September 30, 2013.

Coleman is ordered to

provide that statement or those statements to this Court (with
those filed documents bearing Case No. 13 C 7127 for
identification purposes) on or before October 30, 2013.
Meanwhile this Court grants the Application in the special
sense provided by Section 1915 for persons in custody, under
which Coleman is held liable for the entire $350 filing fee, to
be paid in future installments.

All such future payments shall

be paid directly to the Clerk of Court (“Clerk”):
Clerk, United States District Court
219 South Dearborn Street - 20th Floor
Chicago IL 60604
Attention:

Financial Department

Each payment must clearly identify Coleman’s name and the
13 C 7127 case number assigned to this action.
To implement the just-stated requirement, the trust fund
officer at East Moline (or at any other correctional facility
where Coleman may hereafter be confined) is authorized to collect
monthly payments from Coleman’s trust fund account in an amount
equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the

2

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

facilitate compliance with these requirements, the Clerk shall
send a copy of this memorandum order to the East Moline trust
officer.
To turn to Coleman’s substantive claim, this Court attaches
a photocopy of his Complaint ¶I.V Statement of Claim.

It has

been clear for 35 years that to characterize such a short-term
exposure, as unpleasant as it must have been, as triggering
Section 1983 liability would trivialize the Constitution (see,
e.g., Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978) and DeSpain v.
Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir. 2001), and by way of
contrast see the conditions and time periods involved in VinningEl v. Long, 482 F.3d 923, 924 (7th Cir. 2007)(per curiam) and
cases cited there and in Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136, 139
(7th Cir. 1989)).
Hence the Complaint “fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted,” calling for dismissal under Section
1915A(b)(1).

And because the incident complained of occurred

more than 10 months ago and Coleman has long since been
transferred from the County Jail, any attempted amendment of the
Complaint would be futile (Sound of Music Co. v. Minn. Mining &
Mfg. Co., 477 F.3d 910, 922-23 (7th Cir. 2007)), thus calling for

3

dismissal of the action as well.
Two other matters bear brief mention.

For one thing,

dismissal of this action constitutes a “strike” under Section
1915(g).3

And finally, the Motion is denied as moot.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

October 9, 2013

3

Coleman is also cautioned that if he chooses to appeal
this memorandum order (as of course he has a right to do):
1. That would potentially subject him to liability for
$455 in appellate filing and docketing fees, payable on the
same future-installment terms as have been described here.
2. If the appeal were to be rejected, he might well
incur another “strike” under Section 1915(g).
4