Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning than Assigned Judge
This case is dismissed with prejudice for attempting to commit a fraud on the court. The dismissal does not count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005, 1008-09 (7th Cir. 2010). This matter is referred to the Executive Committee for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for consideration of a barring order.
O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
Pro se plaintiff Joshua Hoskins, an Illinois Department of Corrections inmate, previously brought seven suits in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hoskins v. Dart, No. 10 C 676 (N.D. Ill.) (Manning, J.); Hoskins v. Dart, No. 10 C 677 (N.D. Ill.) (Manning, J.); Hoskins v. Dart, No. 10 C 702 (N.D. Ill.) (Manning, J.); Hoskins v. Dart, No. 10 C 703 (N.D. Ill.) (Manning, J.); Hoskins v. Dart, No. 10 C 0704 (N.D. Ill.) (Manning, J.); Hoskins v. Dart, No. 10 C 0705 (N.D. Ill.) (Manning, J.); Hoskins v. Dart, No. 10 C 0706 (N.D. Ill.) (Manning, J.). All seven cases were dismissed after the court found that plaintiff had attempted to commit a fraud upon the court by failing to make required disclosures about his prior litigation history in his complaints. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 542-43 (7th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). The Seventh Circuit also found that plaintiff remained liable for all of the filing fees for his cases. Id. at 543.
In the new case presently before the court, plaintiff challenges his treatment at the Cook County Jail. The suit covers a short period in April 2012 when plaintiff was sent to the jail on a temporary court writ, as plaintiff is primarily in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Plaintiff initially sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. His request was denied based on the court's finding that he had sufficient resources to pay the filing fee. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff subsequently paid the $350 filing fee for this case, Dkt. No. 10, but has failed to pay the full filing fees for the prior seven cases that were dismissed as a fraud on the court.
Specifically, plaintiff's present outstanding balances for the $350 filing fee for each district court case are:
District Court Case Number Amount Currently Owed