Armstrong v. Dart et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/5/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

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

LAMONT ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS J. DART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 3327

MEMORANDUM ORDER
It is difficult to understand -- and it would seem even more difficult to excuse -- the errors
in the Clerk's Office's handling of this action disclosed by the docket. To begin with, there was an
unexplained gap between the date on which pro se prisoner plaintiff Lamont Armstrong
("Armstrong") transmitted his Complaint and the Clerk's-Office-supplied form of In Forma
Pauperis Application ("Application") to that office in mid-March 2016 and the date on which those
documents were brought to this Court's attention. This Court's staff then requested and obtained
from the personnel at Big Muddy River Correctional Center, where Armstrong was in custody, the
additional information as to transactions in Armstrong's account that were needed there to cover
the entire "6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint (see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(2)), for which purpose the date of "filing" is prescribed by the "mailbox rule" as defined
in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
This Court then promptly issued a June 9, 2016 memorandum opinion and order that
granted the Application but identified for Armstrong the need to modify his
contemporaneously-filed Motion for Appointment of Counsel ("Motion") to conform to the

requirement imposed by our Court of Appeals to identify some good faith effort to obtain counsel
on his or her own before such relief may be considered. Unfortunately Armstrong ignored that
directive, so that when defendant Sheriff Thomas Dart was served with process and thereafter
sought an extension of time to file a responsive pleading, this Court entered another memorandum
order (this time on September 6) that granted the Motion and set an October 11 status hearing, with
Dart's counsel directed to make arrangements for telephonic participation by Armstrong unless he
had already taken action to obtain counsel. Nearly a month later (on October 3) Armstrong
finally filed a second motion for attorney representation, which this Court explained to Armstrong
on the October 11 status hearing date did not do the job, and this Court issued still another
memorandum order (the “October 11 Order,” a copy of which is attached) that once again
transmitted to Armstrong three counterparts of the Clerk's-Office-supplied form of Motion.
As always, this Court’s October 11 Order allowed more than ample time for Armstrong to
comply with such a clear order directed to a pro se litigant. Unfortunately total silence on
Armstrong's part apparently ensued, so that this Court understandably issued a final order on
November 22 dismissing Armstrong's action for want of prosecution.
But this Court has now learned that Armstrong did in fact respond to this Court's
October 11 directive -- he did so by filing a Motion that had been received in the Clerks' Office on
November 14 but for some unknown reason was not docketed until three weeks later (on
December 5), just a day short of two weeks after the case had already been dismissed. This Court
will not inquire into just how such belated handling (or more accurately misaccurately) could have
taken place – in an effort to give Armstrong a fresh start in the new year, it sua sponte vacates the
November 22 order of dismissal, grants his Motion for counsel (Dkt. No. 26) and has obtained the
-2-

name of this member of the District Court trial bar, who is designated to serve as Armstrong’s
counsel:
Ronald S. Barliant
Goldberg Kohn Ltd.
Mid-Continental Plaza
55 East Monroe Street #3300
Chicago, IL 60603
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Because of the really unpardonable late start now being given to Armstrong’s lawsuit, this
Court is contemporaneously setting a status hearing date of January 19, 2017 at 9 a.m. In the
interim this Court looks to the newly-designated counsel (1) to communicate at least briefly with
Armstrong and with Assistant State’s Attorney Anthony Zecchin (312-603-3373), who has
appeared as lead counsel for the named and unnamed defendants, and (2) to attend that status
hearing prepared to discuss the prospects for going forward with this litigation.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: January 5, 2017

-3-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LAMONT ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS J. DART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 3327

MEMORANDUM ORDER
During this morning's hearing on "Defendant Sheriff Thomas Dart's Motion for Entry of
Order in Lieu of Answer" ("Dart's Motion"), defense counsel had (as this Court requested) made
arrangements for pro se prisoner plaintiff Lamont Armstrong ("Armstrong") to participate
telephonically. In addition to this Court's granting of Dart's Motion, which addressed the posture
of Sheriff Dart in the case for the present and hereafter, this Court availed itself of the opportunity
to explain to Armstrong orally just what he had to do to obtain the assistance of designated
counsel -- something really essential to his ability to proceed with his lawsuit.
In the hope that the third time may prove the charm, this Court is again sending to
Armstrong three counterparts of the Clerk's-Office-supplied Motion for Attorney Representation
("Attorney Motion"). Two counterparts of the Attorney Motion must be filled out and returned
by Armstrong if he hopes to proceed with his action, and in particular he must fill in the blank
spaces in the most important paragraph of the Attorney Motion -- its paragraph 2.
As soon as those forms are received by the Clerk's Office, this Court will proceed to obtain
representation for Armstrong by a member of this District Court's trial bar. In addition it will
issue a scheduling order that should allow counsel time (1) to confer with Armstrong, (2) to take

steps to identify the defendants referred to in Armstrong's pro se Complaint as "John Doe(s)" and
"Jane Doe(s)" and (3) to take whatever other preparatory steps may be pursued before the status
hearing date specified in that scheduling order.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: October 11, 2016

-2-