Armstrong v. Dart et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/9/2016. Mailed notice. (kp, )

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 OPINION AND ORDER
Although pro se plaintiff Lamont Armstrong ("Armstrong") is in custody at Big Muddy
River Correctional Center ("Big Muddy") and was housed there throughout the six-month period
made relevant by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ("Section 1915"), his self-prepared "Complaint Under the
Civil Rights Act, Title 42 Section 1983" was properly filed in this Northern District of Illinois
because the conduct that he characterizes as having violated his constitutional rights occurred
while he was housed at the Cook County Department of Corrections ("County Jail") during May,
June and July 2015. Armstrong has coupled his Complaint, filed on the printed form provided
by the Clerk's Office for use by pro se prisoners, with two other Clerk's-Office-supplied forms:
an In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel
("Motion"). Because the printout of transactions in Armstrong's trust fund account at Big
Muddy did not cover the relevant six-month period, this Court has obtained the necessary
additional information from the authorities at Big Muddy so that the case can go forward. 1
_________________________
1
No view is expressed here as to the viability or lack of viability of Armstrong's
substantive claim. Instead this Court must apply the teaching of our Court of Appeals that the
very filing of a putative complaint by a prisoner brings Section 1915 into play as a threshold
matter.

Under Section 1915(a)(2) a prisoner plaintiff must submit his or her trust fund account
statement "for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint," and for
that purpose the date of "filing" is prescribed by the "mailbox rule" as defined in Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). With Armstrong's documents having been received in the Clerk's
Office on March 14, 2016, this Court has treated March 10 as the "filing" date in making the
calculation prescribed by Section 1915(b)(1), and on that basis the average monthly deposits to
Armstrong's account during the relevant six-month period (Section 1915(b)(1)(A)) amounted to
$58.20, 20% of which (id.) is $11.64.
Accordingly the initial partial payment that Armstrong must make toward the $350 filing
fee is $11.64 plus 20% of all deposits to his trust fund account from March 11 through the end of
May 2016. Those post-March 10 deposits aggregate $377.05, 20% of which is $75.41, so that at
this point Armstrong owes a total of $87.05 toward the filing fee. Hence Armstrong is assessed
that initial partial filing fee of $87.05, and the Big Muddy trust fund officer is ordered to collect
that amount from Armstrong's trust fund account there as soon as it is available and to pay it
directly to the Clerk of Court ("Clerk"):
Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago IL 60604
Attention: Fiscal Department.
After such payment the trust fund officer at Big Muddy (or at any other correctional
facility where Armstrong may hereafter be confined) is authorized to collect monthly payments
from his trust fund account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's income credited
to the account (beginning with the income credited in June 2016). Monthly payments collected
-2-

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. Both the initial payment and all future
payments shall clearly identify Armstrong's name and the 16 C 3327 case number assigned to
this action. To implement these requirements, the Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Big
Muddy trust fund officer.
Next this opinion turns to the Motion, as to which Armstrong has stated in response to its
key paragraph 2 ("In support of my motion, I state that I have made the following attempts to
retain counsel to represent me in this proceeding"):
None/This was filed by an advocate.
That does not do the job, for our Court of Appeals has required that any party seeking the
services of a member of the trial bar to represent him or her must first (as the form indicates)
make some good faith effort to obtain counsel on his or her own before such relief may be
considered. Consequently the Motion (Dkt. No. 4) is denied without prejudice, even though
Armstrong will have to proceed on his own until the defect referred to here has been cured.
In any event, with Armstrong having qualified for in forma pauperis treatment in the
special sense set out in Section 1915, the Application (Dkt. No. 3) is granted. With that done,
the United States Marshals Service is ordered to carry out its responsibility of serving process on
the only named defendant, Sheriff Thomas Dart (see Section 1915(b)). 2

Date: June 9, 2016

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

_________________________
2
In that respect this Court recognizes that Sheriff Dart may be an unlikely
target for Section 1983 liability, but he will be retained as a defendant in the case until the
prospective defendants whom Armstrong labels "John Does" and "Jane Does" can be identified.
-3-