Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Robert W. Gettleman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1409 DATE 7/18/2012

CASE TITLE Terrence Willis (K-74561) vs. Andrew Pronger, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application [5] is granted. The trust fund officer at plaintiff’s place of

confinement is directed to make deductions from plaintiff’s account in accordance with this order. Plaintiff may

proceed with his amended complaint [7] and the clerk shall issue summonses for service of the amended

complaint on the defendants. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel [6] is denied without prejudice. 

The clerk shall mail a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at Stateville Correctional Center and to plaintiff. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Terrence Willis, an inmate incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center, has submitted a

completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application and an amended complaint in response to the court’s April 5,

2012, order. His IFP application indicates that he cannot pre-pay the filing fee. The court thus grants his

motion to file his complaint IFP, and assesses an initial partial filing fee of $5.33. The inmate trust fund officer

at plaintiff’s place of confinement 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, the 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 collected

from 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

plaintiff’s name and the case number assigned to this action. Plaintiff shall remain responsible for this filing fee

obligation, and Stateville authorities shall notify transferee authorities of any outstanding balance in the event

he is transferred.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint again alleges, for the most part, allegations that he has been and continues

to be denied visits from his sister since 2007. He contends that such a prolonged restriction violates a state

created right to visits as stated in 730 ILCS 5/3-7-2(f). Briefly addressing plaintiff’s allegations, he asserts the

following: his sister came for a visit in 2007; Internal Affairs Officer Andrew Pronger sought information from

her about the identity of a person she and plaintiff discussed during their visit; when she refused, she was

restricted from visiting plaintiff and has been restricted since then; plaintiff was disciplined for not cooperating

with Pronger or for complaining about the restriction; plaintiff and his sister’s efforts to lift the restriction have

failed. 

Although Plaintiff’s complaint chronicles not only the events that led to the visitation restriction, but

also his complaining about the restriction and disciplinary actions against him, Plaintiff’s allegations center on

the visitation restriction, and his and his sister’s inability to have the restriction lifted. Plaintiff’s allegations that

12C1409 Terrence Willis (K-74561) vs. Andrew Pronger, et al. Page 1 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-01409 Document #: 8 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:131
STATEMENT

he has a protected liberty interest in visitation arguably asserts a valid § 1983 claim, see Gavin v. McGinnis, 866

F.Supp. 1107, 109-11 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 1994) (addressing whether section 5/3-7-2 creates a liberty interest in

visits for Illinois inmates); even though, assuming such a right exists, his complaint raises a question whether he

received the process that is due with respect to the visitation restriction. Id. at 1110 n.2 (stating that notification

of the restriction and the reasons for it and an opportunity to challenge the restriction regularly affords inmates

due process with restrictions to the right). 

Accordingly, plaintiff may proceed with his claim that the visitation restriction for his sister violates a

constitutional liberty interest. The defendants shall respond to this claim. Plaintiff’s claims that he was

impermissibly disciplined for complaining about the restriction in 2007 or 2008, as well as claims about

incidents occurring more than two years not directly involving the visitation restriction, are dismissed as

untimely. The visitation-restriction claim may qualify as a continuing tort, given that the restriction continues;

however, plaintiff’s other claims are distinct from this visitation issue and could have been raised earlier. 

Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 623 (7th Cir. 2007) (the statute of limitations period for § 1983

claims in Illinois is two years).

The defendants are thus directed to respond only to plaintiff’s claim that a visitation restriction was

impermissibly imposed and that the continuation of the restriction violates plaintiff’s constitutional liberty

interest in visits. 

The clerk shall issue summonses for service of the complaint on defendants, Internal Affairs Officer

Andrew Pronger, former Statveille wardens Terry McCann, Randy Pfister, and Marvin Reed, current Stateville

warden Marcus Hardy, and Administrative Review Board member Sarah Johnson. The United States Marshals

Service is appointed to serve these defendants Any service forms necessary for Plaintiff to complete for service

will be sent by the Marshal. Plaintiff’s failure to return those forms may result in the dismissal of unserved

defendants. The U.S. Marshal is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve the defendants. With respect to

any former employee no longer at the work address provided by Plaintiff, Stateville officials shall furnish the

Marshal with the defendant’s last known address. The information shall be used only for purposes of

effectuating service, or to show proof of service should a dispute arise, and shall neither be kept in the court’s

file nor released by the Marshal. The Marshal is authorized to mail requests for waiver of service to the

defendants in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting personal service. If waivers of

service are not obtained, the Marshal shall then attempt personal service. 

Plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the clerk of court in care of the

Prisoner Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the court with the original plus a complete judge’s copy,

including any exhibits, of every document filed. In addition, plaintiff must send an exact copy of any filing to

defendants, or to their counsel if an attorney enters an appearance on their behalf. 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 plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s current motion for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. The issues of this

case are not complex, and plaintiff appears competent to represent himself. Counsel is not warranted at this

time. See Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir.2010); Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 656-59 (7th

Cir. 2007).

12C1409 Terrence Willis (K-74561) vs. Andrew Pronger, et al. Page 2 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-01409 Document #: 8 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:132