Robinson v. Watson et al

Filing 6

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit to the Court, within 21 days of the date of this order a signed affidavit which states the date on which his complaint (Doc. 1) was placed in the mail addressed to this Court, and whether it was mailed by Pl aintiff or another person on his behalf. Plaintiff should label this affidavit and all other submissions with Case No. 15-cv-436-SMY.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within the same deadline as above, Plaintiff shall submit a new motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.(Action due by 6/1/2015). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 5/11/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARRYL ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICK WATSON,
LT. STRUBERG,
CAPT. TRICE,
and ZAC KURTIS,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 15-cv-436-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff’s pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
was filed in this Court. He alleges that while he was a pretrial detainee in the St. Clair County
Jail between July 15, 2013, and January 2014, Defendants subjected him to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), i.e.,
without prepaying the filing fee (Doc. 2). When the complaint was filed on April 20, Plaintiff
had been released from Illinois Department of Corrections custody, and was housed in a personal
residence. Plaintiff thus no longer falls within the statutory definition of prisoner 1 for purposes
of the in forma pauperis statute, which states that “[t]he term ‘prisoner’ means any person
incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or
adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole,
1

The determination of a plaintiff’s status as a prisoner or non-prisoner, and thus the applicability of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) must be made as of the date the lawsuit is brought. Kerr v.
Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 1998).
Page 1 of 4

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a federal district court may allow a civil case to proceed
without prepayment of fees, if the movant “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all
assets [he] possesses [showing] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security
therefor.” Plaintiff’s affidavit was included within his IFP motion. The affidavit was signed on
March 20, 2015, one month before the court received his complaint. It contains financial
information that was current as of March 20, at which time Plaintiff was still incarcerated at
Danville Correctional Center (“Danville”). However, Plaintiff was released from prison on April
10, 2015, and is now on parole (Doc. 1-1). As such, he would no longer have funds on deposit in
an inmate trust account, as shown in the prison trust fund officer’s certification (Doc. 2, p. 3).
Moreover, the motion and affidavit do not disclose any information about Plaintiff’s current
income (if any), financial resources or obligations that would enable the Court to determine his
eligibility for a fee waiver as of the date of filing.
Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that Plaintiff also prepared and signed his complaint
while he was still confined at Danville on March 20, 2015 (Doc. 1, p. 8). He completed his proof
of service on the same date, indicating that he placed the documents in the prison mail system on
March 20 to be delivered to the Court (Doc. 1, p. 9). He also listed Danville as the return address
on the envelope in which he mailed the complaint (Doc. 1-2). However, the fact that this
envelope was not delivered to the Court until April 20, 2015, indicates that it may not have been
mailed from the prison after all, but may instead have been mailed by or on behalf of Plaintiff
after he had already been released. The envelope does not bear any discernible postmark to
show the actual date it was placed in the United States Mail.
Different merits screening and fee-payment rules apply to cases that are brought by

Page 2 of 4

prisoners, as opposed to cases that are brought after the former prisoner has been released from
custody. 2 Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and (b).
For this reason, Plaintiff shall be required to submit an affidavit stating the date on which the
complaint was actually placed in the mail addressed to this Court. If Plaintiff sent the complaint
to an intermediary, who then mailed the documents to the courthouse, his affidavit shall include
those facts. This information will enable the Court to determine which statute and rules apply to
his request to proceed IFP in this case, as well as to the merits review of the action. The Court is
not concerned about the accuracy of the March 20, 2015 proof of service, in light of Plaintiff’s
recent transition from prison to parole, but simply needs to know the actual timeline that applies
to the filing of this case.
Further, Plaintiff shall be required to submit an updated motion for leave to proceed IFP,
to reflect his current financial circumstances now that he is no longer in prison. This information
shall be used to assess Plaintiff’s eligibility for pauper status and his ability to pay the filing fee
for this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit to the Court, within 21 days
of the date of this order (on or before June 1, 2015), a signed affidavit which states the date on
which his complaint (Doc. 1) was placed in the mail addressed to this Court, and whether it was
mailed by Plaintiff or another person on his behalf. Plaintiff should label this affidavit and all
other submissions with Case No. 15-cv-436-SMY.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within the same deadline as above, Plaintiff shall
submit a new motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, that contains his

2

Under the “mailbox rule,” documents mailed to a court by a prisoner may be considered “filed” as of the
date they were placed in the prison’s mail system. See Edwards v. United States, 266 F.3d 756, 758 (7th
Cir. 2001) (holding that the mailbox rule applies to motions filed pursuant to Rule 59(e), under the
reasoning of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)).
Page 3 of 4

current financial information. To assist him with this matter, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail
Plaintiff a blank form IFP motion. Plaintiff is also advised that this form is available on the
Court’s website at: http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/Forms/IFP_Form.pdf.
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk
of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7
days after a change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay in the
transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 11, 2015

s/ STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4