Russell v. Dart et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the reasons stated in this opinion and order, this Court is transmitting three blank counterparts of the form Motion for Attorney Representation to plaintiff Russell. Plaintiff should send in two counterparts of the filled-in form to this District Court -- one addressed to the Clerk's Office and the other addressed to this Court's chambers. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 2/14/2017:Mailed notice and form.(clw, )

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

KENNETH T. RUSSELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS DART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17 C 1082

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Kenneth Russell ("Russell"), who is now in custody at Western
Correctional Center ("Western"), has used the Clerk's-Office-supplied form of "Complaint Under
the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 Section 1983" to file an Amended Complaint against Cook County
Sheriff Thomas Dart, Cook County Department of Corrections ("County Jail") Superintendent
Jones and County Jail Correctional Officer Yau, charging serious violations of his constitutional
rights in November 2016 while he was in custody at the County Jail. 1 Russell has accompanied
his self-prepared Complaint with two other Clerk's-Office-supplied forms that he has filled out:
an In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") and a Motion for Attorney Representation
1

Russell's Complaint ¶ IV Statement of Claim begins with this sentence:

Thomas Dart and Superintendent Jones are only stated in this lawsuit because of
the acts and misactions of their fellow officers.
In light of that acknowledgement, neither of those defendants will be required to file a responsive
pleading -- instead they will be kept in the case because they can respond more conveniently to
discovery requests and, as to Sheriff Dart, because he is the state constitutional officer who, like
a municipality that would have to make good in state-law-imposed respondeat superior terms for
compensatory damages -- not punitive damages -- for an employee's tortious activity (including a
constitutional tort), could be subjected to like vicarious liability.

("Motion"). Although the latter two forms require additional input before Russell can get the
benefits that he hopes to derive from them, the allegations of his Complaint are sufficiently
serious to call for current relief even while he fills in the gaps in the Application and the Motion.
First as to the Application, as often happens -- and this is particularly true where as here
an inmate has been transferred between custodial institutions -- the accompanying printout of
transactions in Russell's trust fund account ends well before the date that the "mailbox rule" (see
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)) treats as the date of "filing" of a prisoner's complaint. In
this instance the printout was dated December 23, 2016, while the date when Russell's papers
were received in the Clerk's Office was not until February 9 of this year. Moreover, Russell has
made life even more complicated in that respect by his having signed both the Complaint and the
Motion, but not having dated either, although he has dated the Application on the same
December 23 date that the trust fund account printout was generated. That being so, this Court
has asked that its even-numbered law clerk (who is expected to work on the case with this Court)
to communicate with both the County Jail personnel and the Western personnel to obtain a
printout or printouts of Russell's trust fund account from December 23, 2016 through February 7,
2017.
To turn to the Motion, it is understandably silent in responding to the inquiry in that
form's paragraph 2 as to any efforts that the pro se prisoner plaintiff has made to communicate
with lawyers or organizations to seek legal representation. This Court cannot of course intervene
as an advocate for a litigant, but it has learned of an organization that is well-credentialed and
that seeks to serve as a resource agency to assist pro se litigants who lack the financial resources
to retain counsel on their own (and even the resources to locate organizations such as the one

referred to in this memorandum opinion and order). That organization bears the name CARPLS,
and its telephone number is 312-738-9200 .
Accordingly this Court is transmitting three blank counterparts of the Motion form to
Russell, with the expectation that he will promptly communicate with CARPLS or some other
organization providing like services to inquire about the possibility that it can recommend, or can
put him in touch with, possible counsel. If Russell takes such action and fills out the forms to
reflect his having done so (even though his efforts may have been unsuccessful), he should send
in two counterparts of the filled-in form to this District Court -- one addressed to the Clerk's
Office 2 and the other addressed to this Court's chambers. 3 In the meantime this Court will
request the designation of a member of the District Court trial bar to assist Russell in moving his
case forward.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: February 14, 2017

2

Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

3

Honorable Milton Shadur
United States District Court
219 South Dearborn Street
Suite 2388
Chicago, Illinois 60604.