Johnson v. City Of Chicago et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM Order: Plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration of Filing Fees" (Dkt. No. 33), which is granted solely to the extent that the Clerk is directed to send an additional copy of this Court's July 10, 2017 memorandum order (Dkt. No. 26) to Johnson at his address of record (the Cook County Jail). None of Johnson's other prayers for relief has merit, and they are denied. (For further details see memorandum order) Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/8/2017:Mailed notice & Dkt. No. 26(clw, )

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

DAVID E. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

USCA Case No. 17-2304
District Court Case No. 17 C 1961

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Prisoner plaintiff David Johnson ("Johnson") has filed a self-prepared "Motion for
Reconsideration of Filing Fees" (Dkt. No. 33), which is granted solely to the extent that the Clerk
is directed to send an additional copy of this Court's July 10, 2017 memorandum order
(Dkt. No. 26) to Johnson at his address of record (the Cook County Jail). None of Johnson's
other prayers for relief has merit, and they are denied for the reasons that follow.
First, as to Johnson's request for reconsideration of this Court's dismissal order
(Dkt. No. 13), this Court has already denied an earlier motion to reconsider on May 15, 2017
(Dkt. No. 17), and the current motion fares no better. And as for Johnson's current effort to
vacate this Court's orders requiring him to pay the District Court an appellate filing fee, that
relief is unavailable because the obligation to pay the filing fee is statutory (see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(2)) and is extinguished only when the fees are paid in full. Although District Court
opinions are nonprecedential and are therefore rarely cited by this Court, in this instance the
ruling in Jackson v. Foster, No. 14-CV-1194-PP, 2015 WL 5918624, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 9,
2015) may well have been written for this case:

Congress requires courts to charge filing fees in exchange for allowing parties to
file certain documents. The fee does not guarantee a particular outcome, nor does
it guarantee that the case will proceed in a particular manner. Parties pay a filing
fee for the privilege of filing the complaint. The plaintiff filed a complaint. Thus,
he owes the filing fee . . . .

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: September 8, 2017

-2-