Brown v. Pfister et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, both the Complaint and this action remain dismissed. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/23/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

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

CORNELIUS BROWN (#R-09994),
Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY PFISTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17 C 1203

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court's February 17, 2017 memorandum opinion and order (the "Opinion") sought
to explain carefully to pro se plaintiff Cornelius Brown ("Brown") the fundamental flaw in his
filing of a "Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 Section 1983" in which he used that
Clerk's-Office-supplied form "to assert a claim of deprivation of his constitutional rights by a
number of defendants associated with Stateville Correctional Center ('Stateville,' where he is in
custody) and by a member of the Illinois Department of Corrections Administrative Review
Board" (Opinion at 1). 1 That explanation, which reflected the results of this Court's preliminary
screening called for by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), concluded by dismissing both the Complaint and
this action because of Brown's failure to have satisfied the precondition to suit established by
Congress in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) -- the obligation to exhaust "such administrative remedies as
are available."
This Court has just learned, as the result of one of its customary checks on disposed-of
cases when the 30-day timetable for possible appeal has expired, that Dkt. No. 8, reflected in the
1

That treatment was (and should be) par for the course -- such explanations are always
due to pro se prisoners, who seek to assert such Section 1983 claims.

Clerk's Office as though it were a new filing on February 21, is in fact a dead-bang photocopy of
the same original Complaint that had been received in the Clerk's Office on February 15 -- a
copy of which pleading had been delivered to this Court's chambers and had been the basis for its
issuance of the February 17 Opinion. Nothing in that later-received photocopy alters the analysis
in the Opinion or the result reached there. Both the Complaint and this action remain dismissed.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: March 23, 2017

-2-