United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
THOMAS V. RYBURN, Plaintiff,
TARRY WILLIAMS, et al, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
Court has just received the Judge's Copy of the most
recent filing by a frequent federal litigant -- pro se
prisoner plaintiff Thomas Ryburn ("Ryburn") -- for
which Ryburn has used three Clerk's-Office-supplied
forms: a "Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, Title 42
Section 1983, " an In Forma Pauperis Application
("Application") and a Motion For Appointment of
Counsel ("Motion"). Ryburn's Complaint includes
a 5-1/2 page, single-spaced, hand-printed narrative
recounting in detail his several years of problems with the
medical staff at Stateville Correctional Center
("Stateville, " where he is in custody), with the
narrative supplemented by many pages of exhibits (a stack
about 1/4" high). As this memorandum opinion and order
explains, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) precludes Ryburn from going
forward with this action without prepayment of the filing fee
in full, not on the installment plan that is made available
by other provisions of Section 1915 for indigent prisoner
plaintiffs. Here is Section 1915(g):
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed
on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Ryburn's frequent trips (in the figurative sense) to the
federal courts have indeed resulted in more than the
statutory three "strikes, " and Ryburn's Complaint
does not show him to be "under imminent danger of
serious physical injury, " Congress has thus closed the
federal courthouse door (again figuratively) to Ryburn until
such time as he pays the filing fee up front.
Ryburn's lengthy tale of woe in terms of his medical
treatment,  Ryburn's focus in this action is on a
claim targeting the Stateville institution itself. Here is
his relevant charge set out in the second-last page of his
Complaint narrative (copied verbatim):
on "the 17th of September of 2015, " petitioner
sent a "Notarized Letter" to the acting I.D.O.C.
Director Gladys Taylor as to why my grievance is being
unlawfully detained by the A.R.B., they immediately sent me
their decision "dated one-day prior too my
notarized-letter", this also may be
"intentional" do to the Dobbey v. Wielding, et
al., No. 13 C 1068 (N.D. Ill.), Class Action
Certification granted by the Court on February 11th of 2013,
Doc. #41, as stated above, my grievance-appeal was sent to
the A.R.B. 5 months "after" Class Action
Certification by this Court on the "same-issues on cell
house condition(s)", since I.D.O.C. blames
"overcrowding" for the
"serious-deprivations", causing "illness,
injury and death", the Court should address this as
well, order imediate reduction and/or closure of Stateville
in "the interest of the public taxpayers"!
Petitioner "has suffered 2 cases of MRSA, rashes,
several-urinary tract infections"!
consistently with that, here is the remedy that Ryburn seeks
in this action, as set forth in Complaint ¶ V and
Ryburn's response (again copied verbatim):
State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you.
Make no legal arguments. Cite no cases or statutes.
Reduction of Illinois Prison Population an Closure of
Stateville Correctional Center "Imediately" due to
excessive overcrowding, unsafe /unconstitutional living
condition(s) causing me harm, risk of future harm, failure to
notify or provide medication-warnings, permanete physical
damage, pain/emotional suffering, injunctive relief and
monetary-damages, any other relief by the Court, under
Continuing Violation Doctrine.
Section 1915(g) has torpedoed Ryburn's lawsuit before it
can begin. If Ryburn pays the filing fee in full on or before
March 29, this Court will address his lawsuit substantively.
this action will be dismissed at that time.
District Court's staff attorneys' office devoted to
the processing of prisoner lawsuits for the District Judges
to whom those lawsuits are randomly assigned maintains
"prisoner profiles" that seek to keep track of the
litigation brought by such plaintiffs. Although it is
possible that such profiles may not be all-inclusive as to