Harris v. Dart et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment 12 is denied. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 2/27/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CORD HARRIS (#2011-1230206),
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
OFFICER JOHN DOE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )
)
CORD HARRIS (#2011-1230206),
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
OFFICER EDWARDS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 14 C 10121
Case No. 14 C 10401
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On February 12, 2015 frequent litigant Cord Harris ("Harris"), a prisoner in custody at
the Cook County Department of Corrections ("County Jail"), filed a self-prepared document that
he has captioned "Motion To Alter or Amend the Judgement [sic]" in which he seeks to revive
the two above-captioned lawsuits that this Court has dismissed in a January 29 memorandum
opinion and order ("Opinion"). That dismissal was based on this Court's determination that
Harris' course of conduct had rendered his allegations of poverty, as reflected in his In Forma
Pauperis Application ("Application") forms, untrue "[in] every real world sense" (thus triggering
the dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. § 1915(e)(2)(A)). Because Harris (who should have known
better, given his extensive experience in this District Court) did not comply with the LR 5.2(f)
dictate that requires the delivery of a copy of every court filing to the chambers of the judge
assigned to the case, this Court learned of the motion only through its vetting of ECF filings, and
it has had a copy printed out for its use.
Harris' motion claims to invoke Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 59(e), which is ordinarily called
into play by such contentions as the need to take account of either an intervening change in
controlling law or the existence of newly discovered evidence, or perhaps the need to correct a
clear legal error. There are also opinions from a number of other jurisdictions (most frequently
at the District Court level) that treat that Rule as a sort of catchall, but this Court's search of
opinions from our Court of Appeals has uncovered none to that effect. That can be an important
factor, for an improvident Rule 59(e) motion is treated as having been brought under Rule 60(b)
(see, e.g., Banks v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 750 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2014)), in which event the
filing of the motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal (id.).
As for the substance of Harris' motion, he contends that his false statement "in his
November 20, 2014 Application that he had not received more than $200 in funds over the
preceding 12 months from any of the numerous categories listed in the Application, including the
catchall category 'any other source'" (Opinion at 2), when he had in fact received $3,000 in his
prison trust fund account in February 2014, was just an innocent mistake -- that he "did over look
the 'catchall' question and mark the wrong box." And of course he is right in saying in his
current motion (copied verbatim):
Mr. Harris did not plan to be stabbed in the eye by some detainee here in Cook
County Jail, nor did he plan for some detainee to attack him while he slept with a
weapon that could have cause death.
But that attempted excuse totally ignores the fundamental truth that in forma pauperis
-2-
treatment for the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff, whether in prison or not, is aimed at giving access to
justice to people who have indeed suffered a deprivation of some constitutional right but cannot
afford to pay the filing fee -- $350 or $400 -- that is the price tag for a ticket of entry to the
federal courts. And that cannot be said of a person such as Harris, who essentially has no living
expenses 1 and who was thus possessed of $3,000 in free funds. Nor can it be said that the
prospects of future litigation were then remote or could not reasonably have been anticipated by
Harris at the time that he came into possession of the $3,000 deposit to his account:
1.
Before that date, in Case No. 13 C 801 assigned to this Court's calendar,
Harris paid the filing fee and has been represented by retained counsel
from the outset.
2.
Then -- again before that date -- in Case No. 13 C 4764 (the only case in
Harris' litigation string assigned to another judge, this Court's colleague
Sharon Johnson Coleman), Harris sought and was granted the special type
of in forma pauperis status provided to qualifying prisoner plaintiffs, and
he has also been provided with pro bono counsel in that case.
3.
In the next of Harris' actions that preceded his receipt of the $3,000, Case
No. 13 C 5470 assigned to this Court, it also granted a then-truthful
_____________________________
1
This is not said callously. It is certainly true that few if any members of society, given
a choice, would opt for such economic freedom when it is created by a loss of personal freedom.
But what has just been said in the text is still true: Society as a whole, and not the incarcerated
prisoner (whether a convicted criminal or someone who in law must be held in custody as a
pretrial detainee), bears the cost of the necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing and what have
you).
-3-
Application and has also provided Harris with pro bono counsel.
4.
Next -- this time after Harris' receipt of the $3,000 and his filing of the
false Application -- came Case Nos. 14 C 10121 and 14 C 10401, which
were the subject of the Opinion that ordered the dismissal of those cases.
5.
Since then Harris has filed two new lawsuits this year -- Case
No. 15 C 821, which this Court has dismissed for the same reason as set
out in the Opinion, and Case No. 15 C 1118, in which Harris has not filed
any Application and this Court has not yet acted.
Despite his ongoing involvement in active litigation, it was only a short time after Harris'
receipt of the $3,000 in mid-February 2014 that he set about his deliberate course of action to
strip down the funds that had been made available to him by causing a regular course of third
party checks to be issued to "friends" or "good friends" -- $300 in mid-March 2014, another $300
on April 14, then still another $300 on April 21, then $300 once again on May 2, then $200 on
May 6 and finally another $200 on May 16 (thus $1,600 in all) -- all the while expending the rest
of the money in purchases at the commissary so as to exhaust the trust fund account entirely.
What that deliberate course of conduct has displayed is a litigant who by his own acts has
disabled himself from paying any of the cost that the federal justice system imposes on anyone
who seeks relief through instituting litigation. Under those circumstances it simply will not do
for Harris to claim justification through his decision to "help [ ] a friend from being evicted from
her home, and loaned her funds until she became able to stand alone and pay back the money,"
as he states in the Argument portion of his current motion. That does not relieve Harris of the
-4-
obligation to play straight with the justice system, and his motion (Dkt. 12) is denied. 2
Date: February 27, 2015
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
_____________________________
2
In the meantime, one major gap in the relevant information -- something that has never
been provided to this Court -- must be filled. Harris is ordered to provide this Court on or before
March 16, 2015 with information as to the nature and source of the February 4, 2014 $3,000
deposit to his account, information that may well bear on the appropriate treatment of Harris'
most recent lawsuit and future lawsuits that he may choose to file.
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?