FILED

AUG 2 2 2001.
mcr W. DOBBINS

hucklel’ Nahash rd» Mga 4)
i Ea iy Gia 7 ~CEER

ULE Li csszz OLCOGS TR = -

JUDGE SHADE

~Chak f The Cua — aise 2osEMOND
Bisa hes Ze dub, Zo

LETTER from plaintiff dai lated 8/12/01.

ls

BED



law (see, e.g., Perez v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections, 182 F.3d

532, 537 (7 Cir. 1999) and Booth v. Churner, 121 8.Ct. 1819,

1825 n.6 (2001)).

Because the Clerk's Office has chosen to treat Lancellotti's
non-qualifying-complaint by assigning a case number to the
matter, this Court will simply dismiss it without prejudice.

This means that Lancellotti will not be barred by any preclusive
principles if and when he may (1) get his act together, (2) frame
an appropriate pleading against an identified defendant or

defendants and (3) seek to return to court.

Chita clare.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: August 29, 2001


Mioote Order For (06/97)
a -
; A , ae » - United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

>

mi i i Sitting Judge if Other
ear Magistrate Judge Milton I, Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 6549 DATE 8/29/2001
CASE In Re: Michael S. Lancellotti
TITLE

of the motion being presented.]

[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) ao Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) ao Brief in support of motion due

@) a Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on___set for__—_att

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__at

(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on__—_—setfor__—s sat.
(7) Qo Trial{set for/re-set for]on__———sat__—

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__at

(9) Qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) General Rule21 OOFRCP4i(a)\(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).

ao) ox {Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Because the Clerk’s Office has

chosen to treat Lancellotti’s non-qualifying-complaint by assigned a case number to the matter, this Court
will simply dismiss it without prejudice. This means that Lancellotti will not be barred by any preclusive
principles if and when he may (1) get his act together, (2) frame an appropriate pleading against an

indentified defendant or defendants and (3) seek to return to court.

ald ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
reat number of notices

oY | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. Aug 31 200t

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form iy)

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

GORE TING 73072001

date msifed notice

courtroom AL AUR a0 EM hs
SN deputy's OL AUG 30 FH &: $3
initials

SN

Date/time received in ;
central Clerk's Office ovaing deputy ils



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

In re

DOCKETED

MICHAEL S. LANCELLOTTI No. 01 C 6549 AUG ah 2001

#07146-097

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Michael Lancellotti (“Lancellotti”)has tendered a 15-page
handwritten narrative in which he sets out in considerable detail
a large number of grievances of various types in connection with
the treatment he is now receiving as a prisoner at Federal
Correctional Institution, Oxford, Wisconsin. Although
Lancellotti has not framed that document as a complaint--for
example, it includes no caption to identify his target
defendants, and it does not specify what type or types of relief
he seeks (other than asking at the outset for a “Court Order of
Injunction” to prevent his being transferred to another
institution until “these issues petitioner shall represent are
fully adjudicated”) --he has captioned the document this way:

Motion for Relief under §2241 Conditions of
Confinement.

Thus the Clerk's Office has understandably affixed a case number
to the papers, and the matter has been assigned at random to this
Court's calendar.

Lancellotti's label is wrong: This is not a habeas case,
for Lancellotti is admittedly (and expressly, see his page 1)

aware that his grievances relate to various conditions (and not

,


to the fact) of his confinement. That being so, and with

Lancellotti being a federal prisoner, this Court's potential
jurisdiction is really limited to the federal equivalent of the
type of claim that may be advanced by state prisoners under 42
U.S.C. §1983--that is, a claim cognizable under the principles

exemplified by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388

(1971) and its numerous progeny. And with Lancellotti's claims
thus being required to be addressed (if at all) as a civil
action, the less-than-formal nature of his submission also
includes his not having tendered either (1) the $150 filing fee
or (2) the materials required by 28 U.S.C. §1915 to be furnished
by any prisoner seeking to proceed in forma pauperis.

That last omission, however, is the product of Lancellotti's
misperception that 28 U.S.C. §2241 (the general habeas corpus
statute) is his potential source of relief (see the attached
photocopy of his forwarding letter to the Clerk of this District
Court). This Court is loath to see him waste a filing fee by
chasing down that blind alley, particularly when he has not
satisfied the statutory precondition to any prisoner's action
regarding prison conditions: the exhaustion of “such
administrative remedies as are available” (42 U.S.C. §1997e{(a)).
Although Lancellotti does speak of undertaking some pursuit of
such remedies, and he indicates his belief that further efforts

are likely to be futile, that does not suffice under established