Johnson Sr. v. Frain et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, plaintiff's in forma pauperis application is denied. Plaintiff's motions for attorney representation 3 and 13 are denied. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/10/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

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

ALLEN JOHNSON SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN FRAIN, LTS Supervisor, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17 C 2000

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Because this action began in a very unusual fashion for a lawsuit by a pro se prisoner
plaintiff -- payment by plaintiff Allen Johnson Sr. ("Johnson") of the $400 filing fee in
advance -- it has followed an unusual path during its two month history. With Johnson having
accompanied his civil rights Complaint with a Motion for Attorney Representation ("Motion")
that complied with our Court of Appeals' directive that confirmed his efforts to seek
representation on his own, this Court promptly issued a memorandum order that called for the
completion of copies of another Clerk's-Office-supplied form -- an In Forma Pauperis
Application ("Application") -- to "enable this Court to determine whether Johnson had
demonstrated a financial condition that would qualify him for obtaining the legal services of a
member of this District Court's trial bar" (Mar. 29, 2017 memorandum order at 1). In that
respect Johnson had earlier "departed from the norm by actually complying with our Court of
Appeals' directive that he must identify lawyers with whom he has communicated on his own in
seeking representation" (Mar. 24, 2017 memorandum order at 1).

It took some time for Johnson to obtain from the personnel at Stateville Correctional
Center (where he is in custody) the information as to his trust fund account to support the
Application that this Court had requested, so that such information has just been forthcoming
from Johnson. Regrettably that and his other current submissions have prompted this further
inquiry.
For one thing, according to the printout of transactions in Johnson's trust fund account
(part of Dkt. No.12) he had something over $6,200 in that account as of mid-April 2017 (an
amount that remained after his payment of $1,500 in attorney's fees back in November 2016).
And for another, his tender of a new Motion (Dkt. No. 13) makes no reference at all to the
posture of his own efforts to seek counsel, even though his original Motion had followed an
identification of some lawyers he had then approached with this statement:
The several law firms have not responded to the plaintiff's request for civil rights
representation yet!!
Both of those things clearly preclude this Court's granting of the Motion at this point, for
Johnson has not demonstrated any entitlement to have a member of this District Court's trial bar
enlisted to pursue his claim on his behalf. Accordingly both the previously existing Motion
(Dkt. No. 3) and the current Motion (Dkt. No. 13) are denied, although it is possible that further
input from Johnson might support a fresh look at that subject.
There is a further problem posed by Johnson's current filings. One of them, a three-page
document (Dkt. No. 11) is a letter addressed to "Dear Prisoner Correspondent" at this District
Court, which refers to its two enclosures, the Motion and a new Application containing the trust
fund account information already referred to, and states in part:
Additionally, enclosed in this package, is the Final Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedy pursuant to Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 504.870(A)(3) regarding the
-2-

above-captioned 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint which the Plaintiff
have just recently received from the IDOC Springfield Administration.
But none of the three just-received filings, each of which this Court has had printed out, contains
anything at all about that subject:
1.

Although Dkt. No. 11 contains the word "(OVER)," Dkt. No. 11 consists
of only three pages -- the two-page letter and a one-page photocopy of the
mailing envelope.

2.

Dkt. No. 12 is the new Application, which comprises nine pages -- eight
pages that include the Application itself and the trust fund account
printout, and once again a photocopy of the mailing envelope.

3.

Dkt. No. 13 is the currently submitted Motion, comprising four pages,
again none of which has anything at all to do with the exhaustion of
administrative remedies.

This Court's courtroom deputy is following up with the Clerk's Office in an effort to track
down the materials to which Johnson has referred in the above-quoted part of his letter. In the
meantime Johnson's lawsuit simply cannot go forward. 1

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: May 10, 2017
1

It should be emphasized that nothing that this Court has said in its two earlier
memorandum orders or in this memorandum order has expressed any view on the substantive
viability of Johnson's claim. That subject will have to be addressed appropriately after the road
blocks dealt with in this memorandum order have been cleared away.
-3-