From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Dart

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Feb 17, 2012
CASE NUMBER 12 C 0740 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NUMBER 12 C 0740

02-17-2012

Robert Anderson (#2003-0017857) v. Thomas Dart, et al.


United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge


Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [#3] is granted. The court authorizes and orders Cook County Jail officials to deduct $8.83 from the 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, Illinois 60608. On the court's own motion, the complaint is dismissed as to defendant Dart on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The clerk is directed to issue summonses for service on all other defendants by the U.S. Marshal. The clerk is further directed to send the plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order.

[X] [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

The plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, correctional officers at the jail, violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights by using unjustified force against him and then denying him needed medical care for his injuries.

The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $8.83. 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 the plaintiff's trust fund account and pay it directly to the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the trust fund officer at the plaintiff's place of confinement is directed to collect monthly payments from the plaintiff'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 plaintiff's trust fund account 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 the 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 the plaintiff is transferred from the jail to another correctional facility.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint. Here, accepting the plaintiff's allegations as true, the court finds that the plaintiff has articulated colorable federal causes of action against his tier officers. Unjustified force against a pretrial detainee violates the inmate's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Dorsey v. St. Joseph County Jail Officials, 98 F.3d 1527, 1528 (7th Cir. 1998), citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n. 10 (1989). Furthermore, the Due Process Clause prohibits deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of a pretrial detainee. Jackson v. Illinois Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760, 764-65 (7th Cir. 2002); Qian v. Kautz, 168 F.3d 949, 955 (7th Cir. 1999). While a more fully developed record may belie the plaintiff's allegations, defendants Cozzolino, Rubiani, and Swineteck must respond to the complaint.

However, the complaint is dismissed on initial review as to Sheriff Thomas Dart. The Constitution "does not require the states to prosecute persons accused of wrongdoing." Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002). "A private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83 (1981). Therefore, the Sheriff's failure to punish the officers who allegedly attacked the plaintiff is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dart is accordingly dismissed as a defendant.

The clerk shall issue summonses for service of the complaint on defendants Cozzolino, Rubiani, and Swineteck. The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve the defendants. Any service forms necessary for the plaintiff to complete will be sent by the Marshal as appropriate to serve the defendants with process. With respect to any former jail employee who can no longer be found at the work address provided by the plaintiff, the Cook County Department of Corrections shall furnish the Marshal with the defendant's last-known address. The information shall be used only for purposes of effectuating service [or for proof of service, should a dispute arise] and any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Marshal. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file, nor disclosed by the Marshal. The Marshal is authorized to mail a request for waiver of service to the defendants in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting personal service.

The plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care of the Prisoner Correspondent. The plaintiff must provide the court with the original plus a complete judge's copy, including any exhibits, of every document filed. In addition, the plaintiff must send an exact copy of any court filing to the defendants [or to defense counsel, once an attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of the defendants]. Every document filed with the court must include a certificate of service stating to whom exact copies were mailed and the date of mailing. Any paper that is sent directly to the judge or that otherwise fails to comply with these instructions may be disregarded by the court or returned to the plaintiff.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Dart

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Feb 17, 2012
CASE NUMBER 12 C 0740 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2012)
Case details for

Anderson v. Dart

Case Details

Full title:Robert Anderson (#2003-0017857) v. Thomas Dart, et al.

Court:United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Date published: Feb 17, 2012

Citations

CASE NUMBER 12 C 0740 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2012)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Anderson and Tolbert held that DART, as a "political subdivision of the state" is not a "person" within the…