Sanchez v. Cook County et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/24/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
OMAR SANCHEZ #20130801109,
Plaintiff,
v.
COOK COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

13 C 7464

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Omar Sanchez (“Sanchez”) has employed the printed form of 42
U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) Complaint, made available by the
Clerk’s Office for use by persons in custody, to file a detailed
claim charging both (1) asserted discrimination in violation of
the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 and (2) the asserted violation of his constitutional rights
in the same respects (Sanchez is a wheelchair-bound detainee at
the Cook County Department of Corrections (“County Jail”)).

That

19-page Complaint has been accompanied by a thick exhibit package
that is really an inappropriate part of the Complaint as such (it
constitutes bulky evidentiary material, rather than making the
“short and plain statement” requirement for pleading called for
by Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(a)(2).
In addition to his Complaint and the inappropriately bulky
exhibit package, Sanchez has submitted two other documents
prepared on Clerk’s-Office-supplied forms:

an In Forma Pauperis

Application (“Application”) and a Motion for Attorney

Representation (“Motion”).

But those documents and the Complaint

pose a question that prevents this Court from complying with its
obligation under 28 U.S.C. §1915 (“Section 1915”) in acting on
the Application.

For that purpose Section 1915(a)(2) requires

that the accompanying printout of transactions in a prisoner
plaintiff’s trust fund account must cover the period when the
prisoner was in custody during the six-month period preceding the
filing of the Complaint, and Sanchez’ submissions are totally
unclear as to that filing date.
In that respect Sanchez is entitled to the benefit of the
“mailbox rule” (Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)), under
which the filing date is treated as the date on which he mailed,
or delivered to the custodial personnel for mailing, the
Complaint.

And on that score:
1.

Sanchez signed the Complaint itself on

September 16, 2013, and he signed both the Application and
the Motion on September 23.

Relatedly, the fiscal person at

the County Jail signed the certificate regarding the trust
fund account (part of the Application) on September 20.
2.

Yet for some unexplained reason, Sanchez’ documents

were not received this District Court’s Clerk’s Office until
October 17--weeks later.
Until that substantial discrepancy is cleared up, this Court
cannot of course determine Sanchez’ average monthly deposits to

2

the account during the relevant time period (the trust fund
account printout covers only the period from Sanchez’ August 2,
2013 booking at the County Jail through September 17).
Accordingly Sanchez is ordered to provide this Court forthwith
with (1) a filing stating and explaining the Complaint’s filing
date (taking account of the “mailbox rule” as explained earlier)
and (2) a new trust fund account printout covering the entire
period from August 2 until that filing date.

This Court expects

to act on the matter promptly after receiving that added
information.

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

October 24, 2013

3