transmittal and how it was addressed (or if he delivered it

to the officials at Pontiac for transmittal to this District

Court, the precise date of such delivery‘); and

2. two executed counterparts of the enclosed

Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis, both of which must

be filled out in their entirety and must be accompanied by a

printout covering all transactions in Keith's inmate trust

fund account at Pontiac for the entire period from May 1,

2001 until October 30, 2001.°

Keith is granted until December 21, 2001 to cause the first
of those filings (as well as the essential information as to his
exhaustion of administrative remedies) to be delivered to this
Court's chambers. As for the second submission, because that
depends in part on materials to be provided by Pontiac personnel
and given the intervention of the holiday season, an additional

14 days (to January 4, 2002) are allowed for the filing of those

4 If that were the situation, the Houston mailbox rule
would apply in establishing the filing date of this action.

5 If it turns out that Keith can satisfy the Section
1997e(a) requirement and that the Complaint was also timely
rather than untimely filed, that added submission will enable
this Court to make the necessary calculations and establish the
necessary procedures called for under 28 U.S.C. §1915. In that
regard, although Keith has accompanied the Complaint with a
handwritten document captioned “Motion for In Forma Pauperis,” he
has failed to provide the necessary additional information
referred to in the text.


in dismissing this action as well on the ground that Keith has

not established satisfaction of the Section 1997e(a) precondition
to suit. But because such a dismissal would carry Keith past the
expiration of the two-year limitation period for Illinois-based
Section 1983 actions, this Court will give Keith an opportunity
to cure his omission if he is able to do so. Any filing that he
makes in that respect must be received in this Court's chambers
on or before December 21, 2001, failing which this action will
indeed be dismissed.?

It should however be noted that Keith may already be out of
time in connection with this current action. Keith's forwarding
letter to this District Court's Clerk's Office is dated
November 9, 2001, and his transmittal envelope bears a
November 10 date--both after expiration of the two-year period
following October 30, 1999. But all that Keith says in that
forwarding letter is that the Complaint “was mailed in a timely
fashion” and that “it was received and returned to me by the U.S.
Probation and Parole Office by error.” What Keith has not
provided are:

1. the precise date on which Keith mailed his original

% This Court recognizes that such a requirement of actual
receipt does not give Keith the benefit of the “mailbox rule” of
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) in that respect. But the
establishment of such a bright-line requirement does not
prejudice Keith, because the December 21 date provides him with a
substantial cushion beyond the time reasonably required to comply
with this order--after all, Keith already knows the facts.

3


papers.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: November 29, 2001


‘Minute Oxter Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois

N igned Judge i itting Judge i
re Magistrate Judes Milton I. Shadur “Than signed Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 8841 DATE 11/29/2001
CASE Bryan Keith vs. Deputy Sheriff Coffee
TITLE

MOTION:

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

of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

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

(2) Qo Brief in support of motion due

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

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at

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

(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on __ Set for at :

(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) im [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

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

CIFRCP4(m) {General Rule21 CFRCP41(a)(1) 1 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) a [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Keith is granted until December 21,
2001 to cause the first of those filings (as well as the essential information as to his exhaustion of
administrative remedies) to be delivered to this Court’s chambers. As for the second submission, because
that depends in part on materials to be provided by Pontiac personnel and given the intervention of the
holiday season, an additional 14 days (to January 4, 2002) are allowed for the filing of those papers.

(il) of [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required,

umber of natices

Document
Number

Notices mailed by judge's staff,
Notified counsel by telephone. oo
Docketi il notices.

ocketing to mail notices. “ pve

al
Mail AO 450 form. de \ a” wy
& ye
i<

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
0
(\

courtroom
SN deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in ;
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BRYAN KEITH,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 01 C 8841

DEPUTY SHERIFF COFFEE,

4,
toy see

Defendant.
92
Uy

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Bryan Keith (“Keith”) has again sought to institute a pro se
42 U.S.C. §1983' action against Cook County Deputy Sheriff Coffee
(“Coffee”) based on an October 30, 1999 occurrence at the Cook
County Jail, where Keith was then in custody.* Although Keith is
all too aware that Section 1997e(a) mandates every prisoner's
exhaustion of any available administrative remedies before such a
Section 1983 action may be instituted, his Complaint is totally
silent on that subject. That and other deficiencies (or possible
deficiencies) in Keith's current filing have occasioned the
issuance of this sua sponte memorandum opinion and order.

By way of vital background, Keith first sued Coffee (as well
as an Officer Albright) on the identical claim almost two years
ago--not long after the October 30, 1999 date of the alleged

cccurrence. After this Court had then found that Keith's Section

» All further references to Title 42's provisions will

simply take the form “Section--.”

? At this point Keith is imprisoned at the Pontiac

Correctional Center (“Pontiac”).


1983 claim in that earlier lawsuit (Case No. 99 C 8171) was
viable in facial terms, defense counsel moved for dismissal of
the action on the strength of Keith's asserted noncompliance with
Section 1997e(a). This Court gave Keith ample time to make an
appropriate showing in response to that motion, but it then
developed “that two thorough checks of the County Jail records
(both the grievance files and the program services! tracking
logs) have uncovered no record of any grievance of any kind
having been filed by Keith at any time during the year 1999”
(quotation excerpted from this Court's August 24, 2000 memorandum
order).

Accordingly this Court, in its just-quoted memorandum order,
granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in accordance with the
statutory mandate. Keith then took an appeal, and on December
21, 2000 our Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing the
appeal because of Keith's failure to pay the required docketing
fee (as the Court of Appeals' order reflected, Keith had neither
paid the $105 in appellate fees nor filed a motion for leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis) .

Now Keith has again named Coffee as a defendant in this new
action on the selfsame claim. Yet, as stated at the outset, his
self-prepared Complaint says not a word as to his having taken
any action in pursuit of the administrative remedies. Under

these circumstances this Court would be totally within its rights