Podkulski v. Trost et al
Filing
65
ORDER: This case is DISMISSED with prejudice due to Plaintiff Steven Podkulski's accumulation of three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/26/2019. (jmp2)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEVEN PODKULSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:17-CV-1284-NJR-MAB
JOHN TROST, WARDEN BUTLER,
WARDEN WILLIAMS, WARDEN
LYRCIA, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
The matter is currently before the Court sua sponte for case management purposes.
Plaintiff Steven Podkulski filed suit in the Southern District of Illinois on November 27,
2017, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Docs. 1, 2. Podkulski listed
his address as a home on Ocean Street in Lynn, Massachusetts, and insinuated that he
was not incarcerated. Docs. 1, 2, 3.
The fact of incarceration matters because a plaintiff who is a prisoner at the time
his case is filed is subject to the restrictions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. In
particular, the Court is required to promptly screen the complaint and dismiss any claims
that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. And anytime a case or an appeal is dismissed for one of these reasons,
the plaintiff incurs a “strike.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915g. Once the plaintiff earns three strikes, he
is prohibited from proceeding IFP in any future civil action or on any appeal, unless he
Page 1 of 5
is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id.
The Court, operating under the assumption that Podkulski was not a prisoner at
the time he filed suit, assessed and granted Podkulski’s motion to proceed IFP. Doc. 6.
The Court then reviewed Podkulski’s complaint and determined that some of his claims
were improperly joined in the action, and those claims were severed into two separate
cases: 18-cv-214-NJR-MAB and 18-cv-246-MJR. Id. at Doc. 7. Podkulski was permitted to
proceed IFP in case 18-cv-214-NJR-MAB. Podkulski v. Butler, Case No. 18-cv-214-NJRMAB (S.D. Ill.), Doc. 7. But in case 18-cv-246-MJR, it was determined that Podkulski’s
claim was legally frivolous, and he was consequently denied leave to proceed IFP and his
complaint was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Podkulski
v. Niepert, Case No. 18-cv-246-MJR (S.D. Ill.), Doc. 5.
The Court has since learned that it was incorrect about Podkulski’s status as a nonprisoner. The Court’s own research revealed that Podkulski has an extensive litigation
history in the federal district courts in Illinois. In fact, he has filed over thirty lawsuits.
After reviewing the docket in many of those lawsuits, as well as consulting publiclyavailable databases and running Google searches of Podkulski’s name, the Court now
knows that Podkulski was incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections in 2001
following convictions on burglary and theft charges. People v. Podkulski, Case no. 1-122554, 2014 WL 5315178 (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 16, 2014); People v. Podkulski, Case no. 3-12-0375,
2013 WL 5728256 (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 17, 2013). He was scheduled to be released on parole
October 22, 2014, but he was arrested that very day for the stabbing death of a woman
Page 2 of 5
twelve years earlier. 1 Podkulski was booked into the Cook County Jail on October 23,
2014, and remains there to this day. 2
This, of course, means that Podkulski was incarcerated at the time he filed his
complaint in this case on November 27, 2017. Unfortunately, however, Podkulski omitted
any mention in his complaint (and the documents filed contemporaneously with his
complaint) that he was incarcerated. Docs. 1, 2, 3. He also took steps to actively conceal
the fact that he was incarcerated by providing the Court with the address of a private
home. The Court notes this is not the first time Podkulski has done such a thing.
Podkulski filed IFP motions misrepresenting that he was not incarcerated in at least two
other cases in the Northern District of Illinois; those cases were dismissed when
Podkulski failed to respond to show cause orders regarding his deception. See Podkulski
v. Miles, et al., Case No. 17 C 8629, Docs. 18, 20 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2019); Podkulski v.
Williams, et al., Case No. 14 C 10104, Docs. 9, 21 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2015).
The Court has also learned that Podkulski incurred three strikes prior to filing his
lawsuit in this district. At least three of approximately thirty civil rights actions Podkulski
has filed while he was incarcerated or detained have been dismissed on the grounds that
1 Don Babwin, Man Charged in 2002 Suburban Chicago Slaying, ASSOCIATED PRESS, available at
https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/news/IDOCintheNews/Documents/2014/Bedford%20Park%20Cold%
20Case%20IDOC%20Help%2023Oct14.pdf (last visited June 25, 2019); B.J. Lutz and Lauren Petty, Man
Charged
in
2002
Bedford
Park
Cold
Case,
NBCCHICAGO.COM,
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/bedford-park-cold-case-jennifer-boyd-280186442.html (last
visited June 25, 2019).
This
information
is
available
on
the
Cook
https://inmatelocator.ccsheriff.org/ (last visited June 25, 2019).
2
Page 3 of 5
County
Sheriff’s
website
at:
they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
See, e.g., Podkulski v. Snyder, Case No. 03 CV 5924 (N.D. Ill.) (Doc. 4) (dismissing case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state an actionable federal claim);
Podkulski v. Walker, Case No. 07 CV 1664 (N.D. Ill.) (Doc. 8) (dismissing case pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state an actionable claim); and Podkulski v. Olson,
Case No. 16 CV 3331 (N.D. Ill.) (Doc. 51) (dismissing case on the basis of res judicata). 3
Consequently, Podkulski is no longer entitled to proceed IFP without prepayment of the
filing fee unless he is in imminent danger.
By all appearances, Podkulski was aware that he had struck out before he filed his
lawsuit in this district on November 27, 2017, because he had been told as much just
fourteen days earlier in one of his other lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois.
Podkulski v. Merritt, et al. Case No. 18-cv-7205 (N.D. Ill.) (Doc. 6). “A litigant who knows
that he has accumulated three or more frivolous suits or appeals must alert the court to
that fact.” Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Sloan v. Lesza, 181
F.3d 857, 858–59 (7th Cir.1999)). But at the outset of his case, Podkulski did not disclose
to this Court his full litigation history, nor did he indicate that he had received three
strikes. Podkulski v. Trost, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1284-NJR-GCS (S.D. Ill.), see Doc. 1, pp. 2,
6. He also did not make any effort to correct the Court’s oversight of this fact, and he
accepted the benefit of proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, which he knows he
Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758, 762 (7th Cir. 2002) (explaining that suit dismissed on the basis of claim
preclusion (res judicata) was frivolous).
3
Page 4 of 5
is not entitled to.
Because of Podkulski’s deception—or perhaps outright fraud—regarding his
incarceration and status as a three-striker, his case is dismissed with prejudice. Isby v.
Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 521 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Restricted filers must still alert the court to their
three-strikes status or risk dismissal and termination of their suits ‘not only for lack of
payment but also as a sanction for misconduct.’”) (quoting Ammons, 547 F.3d at 725).
Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Litigants to whom § 1915(g) applies take
heed! An effort to bamboozle the court by seeking permission to proceed in forma
pauperis after a federal judge has held that § 1915(g) applies to a particular litigant will
lead to immediate termination of the suit.”) See also Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 544 (7th
Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of case for deception about litigation history).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 26, 2019
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 5 of 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?