Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan H. Lefkow Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 11 C 7958 DATE November 14, 2011

CASE

TITLE

Byron McClain (#2011-0711244) v. Officer T. Bailey, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [#3] is granted. The Court authorizes and orders Cook County Jail

officials to deduct $38.06 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, IL 60608. However, the plaintiff must an

amended complaint (plus a judge’s copy and service copies), and defendant Dart is dismissed as a defendant. The Clerk

is directed to send the plaintiff an amended complaint form and instructions along with a copy of this order. Failure of the

plaintiff to comply with this order within thirty days will result in summary dismissal of this case. The plaintiff is reminded

that he must provide the Court with the original plus a judge’s copy of every document filed. 

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

STATEMENT

The plaintiff, a prisoner in custody at the Cook County Jail, has brought this pro se civil rights action

purportedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff is suing Officer T. Bailey, an officer at the Cook County

Jail and Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, alleging that defendant Bailey interfered with his ability to gain access

to the law library on September 23, 2011. The plaintiff’s claim against Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart is

apparently in his supervisory capacity.

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 $38.06. 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

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. 

However, the plaintiff must submit an amended complaint (plus a judge’s copy and a sufficient number

of copies for service on each defendant named in the amended pleading). The complaint on file does not state

a cause of action under § 1983. While the plaintiff alleges that defendant Bailey has limited his ability to access

the law library, he has not adequately alleged that the limitations on his access to the law library prejudiced any

pending or contemplated litigation. Inmates’ right of meaningful access to the courts does not encompass an

(CONTINUED)

AWL

Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT (continued)

unfettered right of access to prison law libraries. See, e.g., Smith v. Shawnee Library System, 60 F.3d 317, 323 (7th

Cir. 1995). Even “highly restrictive” procedures do not violate constitutional mandates if inmates still have

meaningful access to the courts. Hossman v. Spradlin, 812 F.2d 1019, 1021 (7th Cir. 1987). An allegation of denial

of access to the courts must be more than merely conclusory; a complaint is inadequate if it “offers no specific facts

to support these allegations--no court dates missed; no inability to make timely filings; no denial of legal assistance

to which he was entitled; and no loss of a case which could have been won.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351,

135 L. Ed. 2d 606, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996). Here, the plaintiff has failed to meet that burden by merely pleading

that his progress in pursuing his case was “disrupted”. 

To the extent that the plaintiff alleges that Officer Bailey forged his signature to prevent him from attending

the law library, the plaintiff’s claim must be “plausible” in that there are “enough facts to raise a reasonable

expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” that supports the plaintiff’s allegations. Bell Atlantic v Twombly,

550 U.S. 544 at 556 (2007). The Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for violation of his right

to access to the courts because as pled his claim is implausible. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009)

(the court should “draw on its judicial experience and common sense” when determining if a complaint states a

plausible claim for relief). Without more, the plaintiff has not satisfied the pleading requirement of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a), and he must amend.

Additionally, there appear to be pages missing from the plaintiff’s complaint that are intended to inform

the Court as to the plaintiff’s litigation history, and identification of the parties. If the plaintiff submits an amended

complaint, he must be sure to fill out the entire amended complaint form, or risk dismissal of his case.

Finally, while the plaintiff has named Cook County Tom Dart, he has made no allegation of his personal

involvement. The mere fact that defendant Dart holds a supervisory position is insufficient to establish liability,

as the doctrine of respondeat superior (blanket supervisory liability) does not apply to actions filed under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. See Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). Some causal connection or affirmative

link between the action complained about and the official sued is necessary for § 1983 recovery. Hildebrandt v.

Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources, 347 F.3d 1014, 1039 (7th Cir. 2003). Because the plaintiff has failed to state

any facts suggesting that defendant Dart was personally involved in–or even aware of–the alleged circumstances

giving rise to the complaint, he has failed to state a claim against him. Consequently, he is dismissed as a defendant

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses the complaint on file without prejudice. The plaintiff is

granted thirty days in which to submit an amended complaint on the Court’s required form. The plaintiff must

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

Correspondent. As with every document filed with the Court, the plaintiff must provide an extra copy for

the judge; he must also submit a service copy for each defendant named in the amended complaint. The

plaintiff is cautioned that an amended pleading supersedes the original complaint and must stand complete on its

own. Therefore, all allegations against all defendants must be set forth in the amended complaint, without

reference to the original complaint. Any exhibits the plaintiff wants the Court to consider in its threshold review

of the amended complaint must be attached, and each copy of the amended complaint must include complete copies

of any and all exhibits. The plaintiff is advised to keep a copy for his files. The Clerk will provide the plaintiff

with an amended civil rights complaint form and instructions along with a copy of this order. 

In sum, the plaintiff must submit an amended complaint, plus judge’s and service copies. The plaintiff

should only submit an amended complaint to the extent he can state a valid claim under § 1983. If he submits an

amended complaint and the Court finds that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may

be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, the Court will dismiss

the case with prejudice and issue a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk will provide the plaintiff with

the necessary forms along with a copy of this order. Failure of the plaintiff to comply with this order within thirty

days will result in summary dismissal of this case. 

Page 2 of 2