Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

James B. Zagel Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 0741 DATE 2/14/2012

CASE

TITLE

Elliot E. Banda (#114551) vs. Officer Rengal, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file in forma pauperis [3] without prejudice to reconsideration should

he renew his motion in compliance with this order. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to show cause in writing why his

complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and to submit

an in forma pauperis application on the enclosed form with the information required by § 1915(a)(2) or to pay the full

$350 filing fee. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff an in forma pauperis application and a copy of this order. 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this case on the understanding that he does not

wish to proceed with this action in federal court at this time. 

O[For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff, a detainee at the Lake County Jail has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. 

Plaintiff submitted an in forma pauperis application but it is incomplete. Northern District of Illinois Local

Rule 3.3 requires that persons lodging new lawsuits must either pay the statutory filing fee or file a petition for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, using the court’s form and signing under penalty of perjury. The form requires inmates to

obtain a certificate stating the amount of money they have on deposit in their trust fund account. As explained below,

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) also requires inmates to provide a certified copy of their trust fund account

statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the lodging of the complaint.

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application is not certified by the trust fund officer and does not include the trust fund

account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the lodging of the

complaint. If Plaintiff wants to proceed, he must file a new motion for leave to file in forma pauperis on the court’s

form and have an authorized official(s) provide information regarding Plaintiff’s trust fund account(s), including a

copy of his trust fund account(s). Plaintiff must also write the case number in the space provided for it. Failure to

complete the required form fully or otherwise comply with this order are grounds for dismissal of the suit. See Zaun v.

Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990 (7th Cir. 1980).

The PLRA requires all inmates to pay the full filing fee, even those whose cases are summarily dismissed. 

The Court must assess an initial partial filing fee on all inmates who bring suit in an amount that is 20% of the greater

of:

(A) the average monthly deposits in the prisoner’s account; or

(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding

the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

The Court will authorize prison officials to deduct the initial filing fee payment directly from Plaintiff’s trust fund

account. Thereafter, correctional authorities having custody of Plaintiff will have authority (and are required) to make

monthly payments to the court of 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the trust fund account until such

time as the full filing fee is paid.

To enable the Court to make the necessary initial assessment of the filing fee, Plaintiff must “submit a certified

Page 1 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-00741 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:17
STATEMENT

copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period

immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each

prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case

in forma pauperis he must file an in forma pauperis application on the form required by the rules of this court together

with a certified copy or copies of his trust fund statements reflecting all activity in his accounts in the immediately

preceding six-month period.

Furthermore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt initial review of prisoner

complaints against governmental entities or employees. 

Plaintiff alleges that on January 25, 2012, he was attacked by another detainee after he had warned

correctional officers of threats to his safety. Plaintiff signed his complaint based on the January 25, 2012, attack on

February 2, 2012. 

 Exhaustion of administrative remedies, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, is required for all

prisoner suits seeking redress for prison circumstances or occurrences, regardless of whether they involve general

circumstances of incarceration or particular episodes. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). Under 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a), the court is directed to dismiss a suit brought with respect to prison conditions if the court determines that

plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Perez v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 182 F.3d 532 (7th

Cir. 1999).

A prisoner/detainee must take all the steps required by the prison’s grievance system in order to exhaust his

administrative remedies properly. Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 397 (7th Cir. 2004); Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d

1022, 1023-24 (7th Cir. 2002). Moreover, exhaustion is a precondition to filing suit, so that a prisoner’s attempt to

exhaust available administrative remedies in the midst of litigation is insufficient. See Ford, 362 F.3d at 398; Perez,

182 F.3d at 536-37 (emphasis added). While failure to exhaust is normally an affirmative defense, if the plaintiff’s

failure to exhaust appears on the face of the complaint, the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice. Massey

v. Wheeler, 221 F.3d 1030, 1033 (7th Cir. 2000).

 Here, Plaintiff filed suit approximately one week after the alleged incident. Based on this short time frame, it

does not appear that Plaintiff could have fully exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff must show cause in writing why his complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for

failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

 In summary, Plaintiff is granted thirty days to show cause in writing why his complaint should not be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and to submit an in forma pauperis application on

the enclosed form with the information required by § 1915(a)(2) or to pay the full $350 filing fee. Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with this order will result in dismissal of this case on the understanding that he does not wish to proceed with

this action in federal court at this time. 

Page 2 of 2

Case: 1:12-cv-00741 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:18