Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ryburn v. Cannon

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


November 2, 2010

THOMAS V. RYBURN #B60455, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHRIS CANNON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Repetitive litigant Thomas Ryburn ("Ryburn") has outdone himself by tendering two Complaints, one in Case No. 10 C 7024 and the other in Case No. 10 C 7025, on the same day. This memorandum order addresses only the higher-numbered Complaint.

Here Ryburn complains of the asserted mishandling of some of his legal mail. Although he seeks to characterize the brief delays that were involved as violations of "procedural due process and equal protection,"*fn1 the only potential for subject matter jurisdiction over his claim in this federal court comes under the rubric of denial of access to the courts, as to which Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) is the seminal decision.

But Ryburn strikes out*fn2 on that score. In that respect Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) teaches that a prisoner must show "'actual injury'--that is, 'actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim'" (id. at 348). And our Court of Appeals has consistently required such a showing of actual injury in published and unpublished opinions alike (see, e.g., Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006)).

Ryburn does not even hint at his having sustained any "actual injury" in the sense required by the caselaw. Although he is certainly annoyed--he characterizes some of the Stateville personnel as "stupid as well as incompetent" and as having lied about the asserted mishandling--such annoyance is in no way synonymous with "actual injury."

Accordingly both the Complaint and this action are dismissed under the authority of Section 1915A(b). But Ryburn remains obligated under Section 1915(b)(1) to pay the entire $350 filing fee, albeit in installments. In that respect the printout reflecting transactions in his Stateville trust fund account that he has submitted together with an In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") ends on August 10, 2010, even though he signed the Application two months later, on October 10. Hence Ryburn is ordered to obtain and submit promptly to this Court a printout covering the entire six-month period ended October 10, 2010.*fn3

Ryburn's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, tendered along with his other submissions, is denied as moot.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.