Baldwin v. Dart et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on July 6, 2016. Mailed notice (ph, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL BALDWIN JR. (#2015-0911053),
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS DART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 6691

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Cook County Department of Corrections ("County Jail") inmate Michael Baldwin
("Baldwin") has brought this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") action against Cook
County Sheriff Thomas Dart and several correctional officers, stemming from a May 13, 2016
incident in which another inmate allegedly threw feces, urine, spoiled milk, magic shave, bleach
and pickle juice at him. Not only did those substances hit Baldwin, but he also may have
ingested some of them: He says that following the incident his eyes began to burn, he had an
asthma attack and he vomited. When officers made their rounds 30 minutes or so later he
requested medical attention, and it was denied. Since that time he has experienced various
physical conditions that he attributes to his contact with the substances.
In addition to Baldwin's use of the Clerk's-Office-supplied form of "Complaint Under the
Civil Rights Act, Title 42 Section 1983," he has tendered two other forms provided by the
Clerk's Office: an In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") and a Motion for Appointment
of Counsel ("Motion"). In conformity with our Court of Appeals' teaching that the first order of
business when a prisoner plaintiff seeks figuratively to enter the federal courthouse door but is

unable (as is true of Baldwin) to pay the full filing fee in advance, this opinion will first address
the special provisions that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ("Section 1915") have prescribed for that situation.
To begin with, Baldwin's submissions have not precisely identified the "filing" date of his
action in accordance with the "mailbox rule" prescribed by Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988) -- although his Amended Complaint, the Motion and the Application all bear a June 10
date and the signature on the certification by a County Jail official at the end of the Application
is dated June 13, his documents were not received in the Clerk's Office until June 24. But this
Court has obtained from the County Jail and from Stateville Correctional Center, where Baldwin
spent part of the six-month period immediately preceding his current submissions, all of the
information necessary to make the calculation required by Section 1915(a)(2) and 1915(b)(1)(A).
This Court has done so, and it has determined that the average monthly deposits to
Baldwin's trust fund account during the statutorily prescribed six-month time frame came to
$86.67 under every reasonable view of the "mailbox rule" date, so that 20% of that average
(again see Section 1915(b)(1)(A)) amounted to $17.33. Accordingly Baldwin is assessed an
initial partial filing fee of $17.33, and the County Jail trust fund officer is ordered to collect that
amount from Baldwin's trust fund account there 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 the County Jail (or at any other correctional
facility where Baldwin 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
-2-

to the account. Monthly payments collected 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 Baldwin's name and the
16 C 6691 case number assigned to this action. To implement these requirements, the Clerk
shall send a copy of this order to the County Jail trust fund officer.
With that determination having been made, so that the Application is granted in the
special form applicable to a prisoner plaintiff such as Baldwin, this opinion can turn to his
Motion. In that respect he has shown a number of efforts to communicate with a well-known
lawyer who regularly handles Section 1983 actions, and that showing (though Baldwin's efforts
have proved unsuccessful) suffices to support the granting of the Motion. This Court so orders,
and it has obtained the name of this member of the District Court trial bar to represent Baldwin
in this action:
Stephen L. Cleary, Esq.
Cleary & Associates, Ltd.
6832 West North Avenue, Suite 3C
Chicago, Illinois 60707
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] .
Attorney Cleary's initial attention, in addition to his arranging for the service of process
as directed later in this opinion, should be devoted to determining whether Baldwin has satisfied
the requirement of 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a) that he must have exhausted all available administrative
remedies before filing this action (see, e.g., Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 397 (7th Cir. 2004)).
Although Amended Complaint ¶ IV concludes with Baldwin's assertion that "I exhuasted [sic]
my remedies," that assertion is really not verifiable from the documents attached as exhibits to
his pleading. This Court must await input from attorney Cleary to determine whether that
precondition to suit has been met.
-3-

If attorney Cleary apprises this Court that such is the case, this Court will issue its
customary initial scheduling order, and attorney Cleary will be expected to confer with Baldwin
and to determine whether to proceed with Baldwin's self-prepared Amended Complaint or to file
a lawyer-prepared Second Amended Complaint instead. At that time attorney Cleary should also
arrange for the service of process by the Marshals Service or, if he prefers, should arrange for
such service himself.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: July 6, 2016

-4-