We are not at all disposed to give Sloan extra time to
pay. He committed a fraud on the federal judiciary by
seeking and obtaining permission to appeal in forma
pauperis without revealing that he has already been
held to be covered by §1915(g). (Sloan does not
contend that he “is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.”) A litigant who follows frivolous
litigation with fraud has no claim to a tender
reception.

Litigants to whom §1915(g) applies take heed! An
effort to bamboozle the court by seeking permission to
proceed in forma pauperis after a federal judge has
held that §1915(g) applies to a particular litigant
will lead to immediate termination of the suit.
Moreover, the fee remains due, and we held in Newlin v.
Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 436-37 (7th Cir. 1997), that
unpaid docket fees incurred by litigants subject to
§1915(g) lead straight to an order forbidding further
litigation. Sloan's appeal is dismissed for failure to
pay the appellate filing and docket fees. Until Sloan
has paid in full all outstanding fees and sanctions in
all civil actions he has filed, the clerks of all
courts in this circuit will return unfiled all papers
he tenders. This order does not apply to criminal
cases or petitions challenging the terms of his
confinement, and may be reexamined in two years under
the approach of Newlin and Support Systems
International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir.
1995).

This action is therefore dismissed. And as taught by Sloan,

(1) Evans must pay the $150 filing fee and (2) until he does go,
the Clerk of this District Court will return unfiled all papers
he tenders (with the exceptions, and subject to the

qualification, set out in Sloan).

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 19, 2002


ws

beggars the imagination), Evans must have known that he had no

grounds for his in forma pauperis motion before he sought that
status here: In part Robinson cites and relies upon the Seventh

Circuit's four-year-old decision in Evans v. Illinois Dep't of

Corrections, 150 F.3d 810 (7% Cir. 1998), which denied
William A. Evans' right to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
because he had previously accumulated three strikes!*

This Court will not indulge any flights of fancy: It finds
that the 1998 William A. Evans is the 2002 William A. Evans. And
although the Court of Appeals in both Robinson and the earlier
Evans case gave the petitioners there 14 days within which they
could pay the full filing fees, that Court has understandably
dealt far more strictly with a plaintiff who, like Evans, has
continued to file lawsuits and seek in forma pauperis after he
has been told by a court (in Evans' case, by our Court of
Appeals) that he is disqualified from such benefit by Section
1915(g). This Court will follow the lead of Sloan v. Lesza, 181

F.3d 857, 859 (7 Cir. 1999):

+ Although Evans' Complaint in this case does not include
his middle initial, the printout delivered to this Court setting
out his prior case history (which conforms to the identical
prison identification number that Evans lists here) also shows
his name to be “William A. Evans.” Moreover, the William A.
Evans who was denied in forma pauperis status under Section
1915(g) in the Court of Appeals! 1998 opinion was listed there as
then being incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, which
would mesh perfectly with this William A. Evans' last four
strikes having been accumulated in lawsuits that he filed in the
Southern District of Illinois.


ws
Se S
~ “Order F* (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assi udge j Sitting Judge if O
or Magistrate Judee Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C5016 DATE 7/19/2002
CASE William Evans vs. Ms. Richardson, et al
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintif¥, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:
DOCKET ENTRY:

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

(2) im Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.

(4) Q Ruling/Hearing on____—setfor__— at

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor__—at_
(7) im] Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

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

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

CUFRCP4(m) (General Rule21 CIFRCP41(a)(1) [ FRCP41(a)(2).

go) [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. This action is dismissed. And as taught by Sloan
(1) Evans must pay the $150 filing fee and (2) until he does so, the clerk of this District Court will return
unfiled all papers he tenders (with the exceptions, and subject to the qualification, set out in Sloan).

di) af [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

~ Document
“Number

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
ql number of notices:

a | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. docketing deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
79/2002

date mailed rotice

courtroom
SN deputy’s

Pay ar SN
initials Gt

d= Cisttdtid receives in

central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM EVANS,
Plaintiff,
No. 02 ¢ 5016

v.

MS. RICHARDSON, et al.,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

William Evans (“Evans”) has tendered a proposed 42 U.S.C.
§1983 (“Section 1983”) Complaint against (1) a Ms. Richardson,
who is alleged to be the law librarian at the Cook County
Department of Corrections (“Department” or “County Jail”),
(2) Department itself and (3) Cook County Sheriff Michael
Sheahan. Evans, who is a pretrial detainee at the County Jail
pending the prosecution of criminal charges against him before
the Circuit Court of Cook County and who says he has been a
“certified legal assistant/paralegal since 1996,” complains of
major inadequacies in the County Jail's law library that are
impeding or actually preventing his effective pro se defense of
the pending criminal charges. Although Evans' allegations might
well state a viable Section 1983 claim (a matter on which this
Court need not express any ultimate view at this point), his
fatal difficulty stems from the fact that he also seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

But Evans' prior litigation history expressly reveals that


he has accumulated far more than the “three strikes” that trigger
the application of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) (“Section 1915(g)”):
1. Evans v. Washington, 96 C 2261, was dismissed by
this Court on April 24, 1996.
2. That same case on appeal (Seventh Circuit Docket
No. 96-2400) was dismissed by our Court of Appeals on July
30, 1997.
, 3. Evans v. Washington, 96-666-JPG in the Southern
District of Illinois, was dismissed on March 24, 1997.
4. Evans v. Hartwig, 97-191-WDS in the Southern
District of Illinois, was dismissed on June 25, 1997.
5. Evans v. Hartwig, 97-241-WLB in the Southern
District of Illinois, was also dismissed on June 25, 1997.
6. Evans v. --, 00-887-WLB in the Southern District of
Illinois, was dismissed on May 17, 2001.
According to the litigation printout that has been provided to
this Court, Evans had also filed five other lawsuits during the
1992-94 period. But there is no need to research those cases
because, under Section 1915(g) as in baseball, three strikes are
out.
Just a week ago our Court of Appeals confirmed the
inexorability of Section 1915(g) in Robinson v. Powell, No. 00-
3659, 2002 WL 1484482 (7** Cir. July 12). And unless we deal

here with an almost incredible coincidence (a prospect that