~

$150 filing fee on an installment basis and relatedly (2) to
comply with the earlier portion of this memorandum order that
requires him to furnish the additional trust fund account

printout, so that this Court can make the necessary calculations

in that respect.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 8, 2002


showing of all efforts he has made to obtain counsel on his own
(to that end, copies of the form of Motion provided by the
Clerk's Office are enclosed with a copy of this memorandum order,
so that if and when Walker returns to court he can again seek to
obtain pro bono counsel to assist him).

Finally, as to the substance of Walker's claims, they cannot
be addressed at this time because of his failure to satisfy the
precondition established by 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a):

No action shall be brought with respect to prison

conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail,

prison, or other correctional facility until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
Although Complaint III claims that the institution's grievance
procedure was not only pursued but was completed (for which
purpose Walker says his complaints were “Knowledgely and
intentionally disregarded”), Complaint Ex. D (photocopy attached)
directly refutes that: It closes by encouraging Walker “to
utilize the established institutional grievance procedure,” and
Walker's narrative in the Complaint says nothing about his having
taken any such steps after receiving that September 27, 2001
memorandum from Stateville Warden Kenneth Briley.

Accordingly, both the Complaint and this action must be and
are dismissed pursuant to the mandate of 42 U.S.C. §1997(e) (a).

That moots Walker's motion for the appointment of counsel. It

does not, however, excuse Walker's obligations (1) to pay the


cS

inate Order Fogo (0697

AP i United States District Court, Northern District of [linois
van Magiserate Judge Milton I. Shadur Stnareassigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1616 DATE 3/8/2002
CASE Robert L. Walker vs. James Page, et al
TITLE

of the motion being presented.]

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

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) im Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) im Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due__.

(4) ao Ruling/Hearingon___ssetfor___aat

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor____at

(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__at
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

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

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

COFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

to furnish additional trust fund account information.

(ao) «off [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Walker is granted leave to proceed
without prepayment of the entire $150 filing fee. (3-1) Accordingly, both the Complaint and this action
must be and are dismissed pursuant to the mandate of 42 U.S.C. 1997(e)(a). That moots Walker’s motion
for anointment of counsel. If does not, however, excuse Walker’s obligations to pay the $150 filing fee
onan installment basis and to comply with the earlier portion of this memorandum order that requires him

Document
Number

al) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. umber of notices
v | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. r.
Notified counsel by telephone. S dae [4 é
Docketing to mail notices. ry we ye
Mail AO 450 form. we 9’ Lunea Lonusiq’s: aeketinnfdbfy iniiats
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
. 3443/2002
a fy Op amen oe ibd neti
courtroom SSI Cb eVH Zo a
SN deputy’s sn

initials

 Datedtimaelreceitdediin
central Clerk's Office snag dey its



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

DOCKETED

ROBERT L. WALKER #N-60946,

)
Plaintiff, MAR 1 4 2002
v. No. 02 ¢ 1616
JAMES PAGE, et al., . ~
Defendants. } MAR 1 Loto.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Robert Walker (“Walker”) has just tendered a self-prepared
42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) Complaint against eight present
and former members of the staff at Stateville Correctional Center
(“Stateville”), where Walker had been in custody (he is now a
prisoner at Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”)). Walker's
filling out of the Complaint form provided by this District
Court's Clerk's Office appears to set out a potentially viable
Section 1983 claim, but one of his exhibits defeats his ability
to pursue that possible claim at this point.

Before this Court examines that issue, though, another
threshold problem is posed by his contemporaneously-submitted
Application To Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees
(“Application”). In attempted conformity with the provisions of
28 U.S.C. §1915 (“Section 1915”), Walker has obtained some
printouts that report transactions in his trust fund account at
both Stateville and Pontiac. But the difficulty there is that

those printouts leave a gap between October 26, 2001 (when the


balance in his account at Stateville was $46.74) and February 5,
2002 (when the Pontiac printout reports an intake from Stateville
at a time when the account balance was down to §.03).

That being the case, Walker is granted leave to proceed
without prepayment of the entire $150 filing fee (Section
1915(b) (1)), but this Court cannot calculate the amount he must
provide as the initial partial payment toward that $150 figure
(which he is obligated to pay in installments--see Section
1915(b) (1)and (b)(2)). Walker is ordered to obtain and then
promptly to submit the printout or printouts covering the gap
period.?

Another few words should be said about Walker's handwritten
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”), which he seeks to
support with a handwritten memorandum that cites to a 1991 Eighth

Circuit opinion.? What Walker has not provided is the required

+ If Walker fails to comply with this directive, he will be
allowed no opportunity to litigate actively in this or any other
federal action during the period of his continued delinquency.

2? If any evidence were required as to the existence of a
legal grapevine and jailhouse lawyers within our country's prison
systems, it has been provided here. Only yesterday this Court
dealt with a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion by a federal prisoner who
attached the identical legal memorandum in support of his like
request. This is the first illustration that this Court has
encountered over two decades that confirms not only an interstate
but an intersystem network of information available to the prison
population. In any event, as this Court also advised the
prisoner litigant in that other case, the more appropriate source
of authority on the subject in this Circuit is Zarnes v. Rhodes,
64 F.3d 285, 288 (7 Cir. 1995).

2