Range v. Silver Cross Hospital et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM Order: This Court's review of plaintiff Range's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal reveals that he has omitted an essential element that Congress has prescribed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for prisoner plaintiffs. Plaintiff Range's is ordered to obtain and provide the missing information on or before February 6, 2015. (For further details see Memorandum Order) Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/22/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DUANE DONALD RANGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SILVER CROSS HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 2121
USCA No. 14-3683

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Duane Range ("Range"), whose appeal from this Court's November 4, 2014
memorandum opinion and order dismissing his Complaint and action against Silver Cross
Hospital ("Silver Cross") and other defendants is pending before our Court of Appeals, has filed
an In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") in connection with that appeal on January 12,
2015. Because pro se plaintiff-appellant Range mistakenly filed his motion for leave to appeal in
the Court of Appeals, that court issued an order on the same day transferring the motion to the
Clerk of this District Court for a ruling on the motion. This Court's review of Range's
Application reveals that he has omitted an essential element that Congress has prescribed under
28 U.S.C. § 1915 ("Section 1915") for prisoner plaintiffs: 1 He has not accompanied the
Application with the required certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement or
statements for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the notice of appeal (that
filing date was December 4, 2014) as required by Section 1915(a)(2), nor has he had the

1

Range's Certificate of Service of the Application transmitted to the Court of Appeals
reflects that he is in custody at the Western Illinois Correctional Center.

appropriate authorized officer at Western Illinois Correctional Center fill out the certificate in
that respect at the foot of the Application form.
Those omissions are particularly puzzling. Not only does the Application form itself
spell out the statutory requirement immediately below its signature line for the applicant (the
description of that requirement is highlighted by what precedes it, "NOTICE TO
PRISONERS" in boldface capitals), but this Court's October 6, 2014 memorandum order
("Order") that ultimately led to the dismissal now on appeal was based on claim preclusion
stemming from the dismissal of an earlier action by Range (Range v. Officer Hamilton, et al.,
12 C 7742) by this Court's colleague Honorable Robert Gettleman "because Range had ignored a
court order to pay the filing fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis" (Order at 2).
Range's shortfall in not providing the statutorily required information makes it impossible
for this Court to make the calculation and determination called for by Section 1915(b)(1), and
hence to determine definitively Range's entitlement to the special kind of in forma pauperis
("IFP") treatment that Congress has prescribed for prisoner plaintiffs. Although this Court
anticipates that the provision of the missing information will confirm such entitlement on
Range's part, he is ordered to obtain and provide the missing information on or before
February 6, 2015. That action is necessary even though this Court believes that Range's action
was and is subject to dismissal under Section 1915(e)(2)(B), for Range can tender that issue as
well as his claimed entitlement to IFP treatment to the Court of Appeals if this Court denies such
treatment (see Fed. R. App. P. 24).

Date: January 22, 2015

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
-2-