Hall v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 102

ORDER, DENYING without prejudice 100 MOTION for Order to filed by Michael Hall. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Hall two form applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 10/18/2012. (mmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL HALL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
SUPERVISOR BENDOFF,
LISA SHEMONIC,
MR. CLARK, and
MAIL ROOM STAFF,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-cv-0214-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Michael Hall is a prisoner in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Correction. On March 18, 2010, Hall, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S. C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff alleges that, beginning in 2008, the defendant prison officials at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center and Menard Correctional Center, where he was housed, destroyed and
interfered with his mail, in violation of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
On September 20, 2012, final judgment was entered against Hall on all claims. On October 2,
2012, Hall filed a notice of appeal.
Hall is now before the Court seeking permission to pay a partial appellate filing
fee toward his appeal in this case, and in another case in this district, Hall v. Thomas, No. 10-cv0633-JPG. A similar motion regarding paying a partial appellate filing fee has been filed in Hall
v. Thomas, No. 10-cv-0633-JPG, which is before United States District Judge J. Phil Gilbert for
decision. With respect to the motion in the present case, the undersigned district judge perceives
1

that Hall is actually seeking leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(2).
Section 1915(a) requires submission of an affidavit stating all of his assets and
reflecting that the appellant is unable to pay the filing fee, and submission of a certified copy of
the Prisoner’s trust fund account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
notice of appeal. Also, “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies
in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “[T]o determine that an
appeal is in good faith, a court need only find that a reasonable person could suppose that the
appeal has some merit.” Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Lee v.
Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000)).
Hall submitted a trust fund statement reflecting only a two-month period
preceding his appeal, and no affidavit was submitted. The Court cannot discern Hall’s assets or
source of income based on the limited documentation submitted. Hall began with a $590.45
balance and ended with $461.69. His two largest expenditures were $38.00 for Playboy, and
$37.33 for commissary items; he also had two $5.00 medical co-payments. Therefore, Hall can
pay the $455.00 docketing fee for his appeal in this case, or his other case. He does not have
sufficient funds to pay both appellate filing fees in full. However, if one filing fee is paid in full,
Hall could then financially qualify as a pauper relative to the other action (leaving the question of
whether the appeal was taken in good faith). Hall may have strategic reasons for wanting to pay
the fee for a particular appeal, thereby ensuring that it will proceed—rather than taking a chance
that the Court will find that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The Court will allow Hall to
make these decisions for himself and submit a properly supported motion(s).

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hall’s motion to proceed on appeal as a
pauper (Doc. 100) is DENIED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send Hall two form applications for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 18, 2012
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3