IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
September 18, 2012
MICHAEL WIDMER, ETC., PLAINTIFF,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
Michael Widmer ("Widmer") has utilized the form of Complaint for 42 U.S.C. §1983 ("Section 1983") lawsuits that is provided by the Clerk's Office for use by persons in custody to sue the Illinois Department of Corrections, its Director S.A. Godinez and several of its employees, complaining about the conditions at the Northern Reception Center, part of the Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville"). Widmer has accompanied his filing with (1) a letter asking for the installment payment of the $350 filing fee and (2) a Clerk's-Office-supplied form of Motion for Appointment of Counsel ("Motion"). This memorandum order addresses a few shortcomings that Widmer must cure before he can proceed with his action.
To begin with, the Complaint is captioned "Michael Widmer on behalf of all other similarly situated inmates," and a number of the allegations speak of conditions experienced by persons other than Widmer himself. But non-lawyer Widmer cannot engage in the practice of law, and that means he cannot advance the claims of persons other than himself. Accordingly this action will be treated as brought on behalf of Widmer alone.
Next, Widmer has failed to submit, as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915, a printout of transactions in his trust fund account at Stateville and at any other custodial institution where he has been held during the period from March 1 through August 31, 2012. That information is necessary to enable this Court (1) to act on his In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") and, if it is granted, (2) to determine the required initial installment payment toward the filing fee. Widmer's letter that volunteers his own proposal for installment payment does not conform to the statutory requirement.
Accordingly this Court must defer action on Widmer's Complaint pending the submission of his trust fund account information. When that is provided this Court anticipates taking appropriate action in the case (including a ruling on Widmer's Motion).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.