IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
December 6, 2010
THOMAS V. RYBURN
DON HULICK, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is one of two lawsuits that Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville") inmate Thomas Ryburn ("Ryburn) filed on the same date, October 28, 2010 -- the other action is Ryburn v. Cannon, Case No. 10 C 7025. Although this Court thereafter dismissed this action because of what it understood to have been Ryburn's failure to comply with the directive in its November 3 memorandum, this Court has just learned that Ryburn had transmitted to the Clerk's Office (received there on November 22) an appropriate In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application"),*fn1 coupled with a printout reflecting the transactions in his trust fund account at Stateville for the six-month period made relevant by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).*fn2
This Court has thus been able to make the calculation called for by Section 1915(b)(1), and it has determined that Ryburn's average monthly deposits during the six-month period ended October 20, 2010*fn3 came to $62.49, 20% of which is $12.50. Accordingly the Application is granted to the extent that Ryburn need not pay the full $350 filing fee in advance, although he must pay the entire fee in future installments.*fn4
Ryburn is therefore assessed an initial payment of $12.50, and the Stateville trust fund officer is ordered to collect that amount from Ryburn's trust fund account and to pay it directly to the Clerk of Court ("Clerk"):
Office of the Clerk
United States District Court 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Attention: Fiscal Department
Both that initial payment and all future payments called for in this memorandum order shall clearly identify Ryburn's name and the 10 C 7024 case number assigned to this action. To implement these requirements, the Clerk shall send a copy of this memorandum order to the Stateville trust fund officer.
After such initial payment, the trust fund officer at Stateville (or at any other correctional facility where Ryburn may hereafter be confined) is authorized to collect monthly payments from Ryburn's trust fund account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's income credited to the account. Monthly payments collected from the trust fund account shall be forwarded to the Clerk each time the amount so collected exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid.
This opinion turns, then, to the substance of Ryburn's Complaint ¶IV (its Statement of Claim). Although Ryburn's overly-detailed narrative there recounts his grievances at length, it is substantially deficient in failing to supply the dates of many of the events to which he refers. What is clear, however, is that the dates that he does provide describe events in August and September 2008, so that any claims sought to be based on those events are barred by the two-year limitation period applicable to Illinois-based 42 U.S.C. ("Section 1983") actions.*fn5 And that in turn means that any of Ryburn's targeted defendants whose complained-of actions were solely within that earlier time frame must be dismissed from his lawsuit.
Another related point should be made. To the extent that Ryburn pursued his administrative grievances into a period not barred by limitations -- that is, into the post-October 20, 2008 period -- the pursuit and consequent rejection of those grievances may be relevant to the requirement of 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a) that he must have exhausted all available administrative remedies before he could bring this lawsuit.*fn6 But the denial of his efforts to obtain a different outcome on such administrative review is not itself actionable under Section 1983 unless it violates a constitutional right.
It is not this Court's role to do Ryburn's work for him --even less so in light of his numerous prior lawsuits that he lists in Complaint ¶ III (a history that appears to exhibit substantial familiarity with the legal system). Accordingly this action remains dismissed for the present. But if on or before December 23, 2010 Ryburn tenders a proposed Amended Complaint conforming to what has been said in this memorandum opinion and order, this Court will treat it for limitations purposes as having the same effective October 20, 2010 date and will consider it on that basis.