United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
February 28, 2012
LEWIS JOHNSON (#2011-0618167)
PITTMAN, ET AL.
Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Robert W. Gettleman Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis  is granted. The Court authorizes and orders Cook County Jail officials to deduct $15.80 from Plaintiff's account, and to continue making monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Supervisor of Inmate Trust Fund Accounts, Cook County Dept. of Corrections Administrative Office, Division V, 2700 S. California, Chicago, IL 60608. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to show cause in writing why his complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this order. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this case on the understanding that he does not wish to proceed with this action in federal court at this time.
O [For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
Plaintiff, a pretrial at Cook County Jail has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $15.80. The supervisor of inmate trust accounts at the Cook County Jail is authorized and ordered to collect, when funds exist, the partial filing fee from Plaintiff's trust fund account and pay it directly to the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, Plaintiff's trust fund officer is directed to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff's trust fund account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's income credited to the account. Monthly payments shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier's Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly identify Plaintiff's name and the case number assigned to this action. The Cook County inmate trust account office shall notify transferee authorities of any outstanding balance in the event Plaintiff is transferred from the jail to another correctional facility.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt review of the complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that on January 5, 2012, he was attacked by another detainee for no apparent reason while Plaintiff was on the telephone. Plaintiff alleges that Correctional Officer McFadden was present and that he did nothing to stop the attack nor did he provide any help during the attack. Plaintiff was taken for medical treatment, including surgery for a broken jaw. Plaintiff signed his complaint based on the January 5, 2012, attack on February 2, 2012.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, is required for all prisoner suits seeking redress for prison circumstances or occurrences, regardless of whether they involve general circumstances of incarceration or particular episodes. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the court is directed to dismiss a suit brought with respect to prison conditions if the court determines that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Perez v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 182 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 1999).
A prisoner/detainee must take all the steps required by the prison's grievance system in order to exhaust his administrative remedies properly. Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 397 (7th Cir. 2004); Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1023-24 (7th Cir. 2002). Moreover, exhaustion is a precondition to filing suit, so that a prisoner's attempt to exhaust available administrative remedies in the midst of litigation is insufficient. See Ford, 362 F.3d at 398; Perez, 182 F.3d at 536-37 (emphasis added). While failure to exhaust is normally an affirmative defense, if the plaintiff's failure to exhaust appears on the face of the complaint, the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice. Massey v. Wheeler, 221 F.3d 1030, 1033 (7th Cir. 2000).
Here, Plaintiff filed suit less than one month after the alleged incident. Based on this short time frame, it does not appear that Plaintiff could have fully exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff must show cause in writing why his complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Plaintiff is granted thirty days to show cause in writing why his complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this case on the understanding that he does not wish to proceed with this action in federal court at this time.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.