Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Gary Feinerman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 3956 DATE 1-14-2013

CASE

TITLE

Anthony White (2010-0128168) vs. Supt. Marici, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [6] is granted. The court authorizes and orders

Cook County Jail officials to deduct $12.17 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. However, summonses shall not issue at this time. The complaint on file

is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is allowed until 2/12/2013 to submit an amended complaint (plus a

Judge’s copy and service copies) limited to a single, core claim in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall

provide Plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form, instructions for filing, and a copy of this order. 

If Plaintiff does not submit a proposed amended complaint by 2/12/2013, this case will be summarily

dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [4] is denied without prejudice.

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

STATEMENT

Pro se plaintiff Anthony White, a Cook County Jail detainee, brought this civil rights suit pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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 $12.17. 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 to pay it directly to the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial

filing fee, the trust fund officer at Plaintiff’s place of confinement is directed to collect monthly payments

from his 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. 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. 

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was assaulted by fellow inmates in July 2010, September 2010,

and January 2012. The complaint names the attacking inmates and Superintendent Marici as defendants. 

Plaintiff does not allege that Marici has any personal involvement in the attacks. The complaint is

unacceptable for two reasons.

12C3956 Anthony White (2010-0128168) vs. Supt. Marici, et al. Page 1 of 3

Case: 1:12-cv-03956 Document #: 8 Filed: 01/14/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:24
STATEMENT

First, Plaintiff cannot bring claims regarding these three unrelated events in one complaint. A

prisoner is limited to one core group of related claims in any single lawsuit. See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d

950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). “Unrelated claims

against different defendants belong in different suits . . . .” George, 507 F.3d at 607. Accordingly, Plaintiff

must choose a single assault to pursue under this case number. The other two assaults must be brought in two

separate lawsuits, unless there is a properly named common defendant for each incident. Plaintiff should also

be aware that he will be responsible for filing fees and must comply with the requirements of the PLRA for

each new suit he brings. Before filing any new suits, Plaintiff should be aware that § 1983 suits can be

brought only against government officials, such as correctional guards; a fellow detainee is not a proper

defendant in a § 1983 suit. See London v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 600 F.3d 742, 746 (7th Cir. 2010) (citations

omitted). Furthermore, government officials can be held liable only for their own personal violations; their

status as a supervisor is insufficient by itself to establish liability. See Matthews v. City of E. St. Louis, 675

F.3d 703, 708-09 (7th Cir. 2012). 

Second, the complaint does not state a viable claim against Defendant Marici. “The Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects pre-trial detainees from punishment and places a duty upon jail

officials to protect pre-trial detainees from violence.” Fisher v. Lovejoy, 414 F.3d 659, 661 (7th Cir. 2005);

see also Lewis v. Richards, 107 F.3d 549, 552-53 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

831-33 (1994)). However, not every act of inmate-on-inmate violence results in a constitutional violation. 

Borello v. Allison, 446 F.3d 742, 747 (7th Cir. 2006). To state a claim of this nature, Plaintiff must allege

that (1) he faced a grave risk and (2) the defendant was deliberately indifferent to the risk. See Dale v.

Poston, 548 F.3d 563, 569 (7th Cir. 2008).

As to the grave risk requirement, which is called the objective requirement, Plaintiff must allege that

“(1) he suffered an objectively sufficient serious injury; and (2) he was incarcerated under conditions posing a

substantial risk of serious harm.” Ibid. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). A condition that poses a substantial

risk of harm is one where the “risks [are] so great that they are almost certain to materialize if nothing is

done.” Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 911 (7th Cir. 2005). This standard has been analogized to the threat

posed by inherently danger situations such as placing a detainee in a cell with a cobra. Id. at 911 (citing

Billman v. Indiana Dep.’t of Corr., 56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 1995)). As to the deliberate indifference

requirement, which is called the subjective requirement, the complaint must allege facts indicating that the

defendant “‘effectively condone[d] the attack by allowing it to happen.’” Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749,

756 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Lewis, 107 F.3d at 553). “[D]efendants [must have] actual knowledge of an

impending harm easily preventable, so that a conscious, culpable refusal to prevent the harm can be inferred

from defendants’ failure to prevent it.” Santiago, 599 F.3d at 756 (quoting Lewis, 107 F.3d at 553). “Mere

negligence or even gross negligence does not constitute deliberate indifference.” Borello, 446 F.3d at 749. 

However, “[a] prison official cannot escape liability by showing that he did not know that a plaintiff was

especially likely to be assaulted by the specific prisoner who eventually committed the assault.” Dale, 548

F.3d at 569 (citations omitted). “The ultimate measure of the adequacy of the response is therefore

reasonableness in light of the surrounding circumstances.” Ibid.

A common fact pattern for liability in this type of case is when a correctional officer ignores repeated

detainee complaints that the detainee is under the threat of violence and there is a subsequent assault. 

Borello, 446 F.3d at 749 (citing Velez v. Johnson, 395 F.3d 732, 736-37 (7th Cir. 2005); Haley, 86 F.3d 642);

see also Brown, 398 F.3d at 914. An alternative permissible theory is that a correctional officer knowingly

took actions that exposed a detainee to a serious injury. See Case v. Ahitowi, 301 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

2002); Billman, 56 F.3d at 788. The complaint does not plausibly allege that Marici ignored Plaintiff’s

12C3956 Anthony White (2010-0128168) vs. Supt. Marici, et al. Page 2 of 3

Case: 1:12-cv-03956 Document #: 8 Filed: 01/14/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:25
STATEMENT

complaints that he was under a risk of assault or that Marici otherwise took actions that knowingly exposed

Plaintiff to a serious risk of injury. 

Plaintiff has until February 12, 2013, to submit a proposed amended complaint (on the court’s

amended complaint form) that fixes the foregoing problems with the original complaint. Plaintiff must write

both the case number and the judge’s name on the proposed amended complaint, sign it, and return it to the

Prisoner Correspondent. As with every document filed with the court, Plaintiff must provide an extra copy

for the judge, and must also submit a service copy for each defendant named in the proposed amended

complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that the proposed amended pleading supersedes the original complaint and

must stand complete on its own. Therefore, all allegations that Plaintiff wishes the court to consider must be

set forth in the proposed amended complaint, without reference to the original complaint. Any exhibits the

plaintiff wants the court to consider must be attached, and each copy of the proposed amended complaint

must include complete copies of any and all exhibits.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice because he has failed to

make a reasonable effort to obtain his own attorney. See Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 852 (7th Cir.

2010); Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Plaintiff must request pro bono assistance

from law firms or legal assistance organizations before he may request counsel from the court. He should

include copies of the letters he receives from these entities responding to his requests in any renewed motion

for counsel. 

12C3956 Anthony White (2010-0128168) vs. Supt. Marici, et al. Page 3 of 3

Case: 1:12-cv-03956 Document #: 8 Filed: 01/14/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:26