Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 3964 DATE 5/23/2012

CASE

TITLE

Bruce S. Smith (#2010-0528206) vs. Cook County, Illinois, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [#3] is granted. The Court authorizes Cook County Jail

officials to deduct $31.67 from 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 Cook County Department of Facilities Maintenance is dismissed as a Defendant 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 also directed to send Plaintiff a magistrate judge consent form and

filing instructions along with a copy of this order. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [#4] is denied,

without prejudice. 

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

STATEMENT

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. Plaintiff claims that Defendants, Cook County and jail

officials, have violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by subjecting him to inhumane conditions of confinement

and by acting with deliberate indifference to his health and safety. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the

jail is so unsanitary that he and his fellow inmates are exposed to athlete’s foot, the MSRA super virus, “flesheating bacteria,” and other health risks.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $31.67. 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 Plaintiff’s trust fund

account and pay it directly to the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, Plaintiff’s 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 shall be forwarded to the Clerk of 

(CONTINUED)

mjm

Page 1 of 3
STATEMENT (continued)

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. The Cook

County inmate trust account office shall notify transferee authorities of any outstanding balance in the event

Plaintiff is transferred from the jail to another correctional facility. 

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

against governmental entities or employees. Here, accepting Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, the Court finds

that the complaint states a colorable cause of action under the Civil Rights Act. Incarcerated persons are entitled

to confinement under humane conditions that satisfy “basic human needs.” Rice ex rel. Rice v. Correctional

Medical Services, 675 F.3d 650, 664 (7th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Correctional officials must provide, inter

alia, adequate sanitation and hygienic materials. Id. at 664 (citing Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir.

2006). While a more fully developed record may belie Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants must respond to the

allegations in the complaint. 

However, the “Cook County Department of Facilities Maintenance” is summarily dismissed as a Defendant. 

Plaintiff has named Cook County; the County’s Department of Facilities Maintenance (Management) is not itself

an additional suable entity. See, e.g., Castillo v. Cook County Department Mail Room, 990 F.2d 304 (7th Cir.

1993). 

The Clerk shall issue summonses for service of the complaint on Defendants Dart, Braitlen, and Cook

County. The Clerk shall also send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting

Documents along with a copy of this order. 

The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve Defendants. Any service forms necessary for

Plaintiff to complete will be sent by the Marshal as appropriate to serve Defendants with process. The U.S.

Marshal is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve Defendants. With respect to any former jail employee

who can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the Cook County Department of Corrections

shall furnish the Marshal with 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 Defendants in the manner

prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting 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 Court filing to

Defendants [or to defense counsel, once an attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Defendants]. 

(CONTINUED)

Page 2 of 3
STATEMENT (continued)

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.

Finally, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. There is no constitutional or statutory right

to counsel in federal civil cases. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Johnson v.

Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, the district Court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1) to request counsel for an indigent litigant. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007), citing

Johnson, 433 F.3d at 1006. When a pro se litigant submits a request for appointment of counsel, the Court must

first consider whether the indigent plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on his own, or

conversely, if he has been precluded from doing so. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654. Next, the Court must evaluate the

complexity of the case and whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate it on his own. Id. at 654-55. Another

consideration is whether the assistance of counsel would provide a substantial benefit to the Court or the parties,

potentially affecting the outcome of the case. Id. at 654; Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 656 (7th Cir. 2004); see also

Local Rule 83.36(c) (N.D. Ill.) (listing the factors to be taken into account in determining whether to appoint

counsel). 

After considering the above factors, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted in

this case. Although the complaint sets forth cognizable claims, Plaintiff has alleged no physical or mental disability

that might preclude him from adequately investigating the facts giving rise to his complaint. Neither the legal

issues raised in the complaint nor the evidence that might support Plaintiff’s claims are so complex or intricate that

a trained attorney is necessary. Plaintiff, whose initial submissions are coherent and articulate, appears more than

capable of presenting his case. It should additionally be noted that the Court grants pro se litigants wide latitude

in the handling of their lawsuits. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied at this time. 

Should the case proceed to a point that assistance of counsel is appropriate, the Court may revisit this request. 

Page 3 of 3