Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

SHARON JOHNSON

COLEMAN

Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 0740 DATE February 17, 2012

CASE

TITLE

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

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. 

O [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

(CONTINUED)

mjm

Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT (continued)

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.

Page 2 of 2