dismissed (a dismissal that constitutes one strike for purposes
of Section 1915(g)), although such dismissal does not affect Cox’
continuing liability for payment of the $150 filing fee.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 20, 2001


e

that the unnamed Assistant Public Defender who is assigned to his
case has failed to pursue--despite Cox’ repeated requests that he
do so--a reduction in the $90,000 bail figure initially set by a
state court judge on criminal charges that Cox describes as
“credit card violations.” That grievance does not of course
implicate City at all, so that Cox’ naming it as a defendant must
be viewed as totally frivolous. And the same is true of County,
for nothing that Cox has said ascribes to it the kind of direct
activity (as contrasted with any potential respondeat superior
responsibility) that would survive scrutiny under Monell v. Dep’t

of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).

Finally, as to Public Defender Fry, this Court leaves aside
the absence of her personal noninvolvement, for Cox could
presumably cure that difficulty by identifying the Assistant
Public Defender assigned to his case and by substituting that
individual for Fry as a defendant. Instead the fatal flaw with
that claim is that a public defender is not a “state actor”
subject to Section 1983 liability to begin with (Polk County v.
Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981)).

What all of this adds up to is that Section 1983 is so
patently inapplicable to Cox’ Complaint that it is “frivolous” in
the legal sense defined by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989) and refined in Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33

(1992). Hence both the Complaint and this action must be and are


Mviote Order Font¥(06/97)

Seb

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

Name of Assigned Judj i Sitting Judge if Oth

vor Magistrate Judge Milton I, Shadur han heigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 01.C 5513 DATE 7/20/2001
CASE Antonne Cox vs. City of Chicago
TITLE

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

DOCKET ENTRY:

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

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

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

(4) qa Ruling/Hearing on__set for__at

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

(6) Oo 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) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to____aat.

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

COFRCP4(m) CGeneral Rule 21 CIFRCP41(a)(1) C1 FRCP41(a)(2).

ao) «= [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Both the Complaint and this action
must be and are dismissed (a dismissal that constitutes one strike for purposes of Section 1915(g)),
although such dismissal does not affect Cox’ continuing liability for payment of the $150 filing fee.

dl) @f [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. number ot noices
VY | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. ww UL 23 2001
Notified counsel by telephone, we A “ d sed”

im

Docketing to mail notices. 7
v Mail AO 450 form. a dock Wing Adputy nine
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. on TING
anon
A “.
uu . notic
courtroom | JUL 20 PHI2: 46 date moied notice
SN deputy's ow
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office ailing deputy initials



>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JUL 2 3 2004
EASTERN DIVISION

ANTONNE COX,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 01 C 5513
)
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Antonne Cox (“Cox”) has submitted a self-prepared 42 U.S.C.
§1983 ("Section 1983”) Complaint --self-prepared in the sense that
he has used the form made available by this District Court’s
Clerk's Office for prisoners claiming deprivations of their
constitutional rights, with Cox having filled in the various
planks in the form in handwriting. Cox has named as defendants
the City of Chicago (“city”), Cook County (“County”) and the
“public Defender Office” and Cook County Public Defender Rita Fry
(“Fry”). Because cox’s status as a pretrial detainee requires
his compliance with 28 u.§.C. §1915,1 this opinion will first
turn to that subject and will then explain why both the Complaint
and this action must be and are dismissed.

As for the first subject to be discussed, Cox has done none
of the things required of a prisoner under Section 1915: No

application to proceed without prepayment of the $150 filing fee

1 All further references to Title 28's provisions will

simply take the form ‘“Section--.”


accompanies his Complaint (see Section 1915(a)(1)), nor has he
provided the required certified copy of his trust fund account
statement at the County Jail for the period that he has been in
custody there (although Section 1915 (a) (2) prescribes a six-month
period before the prisoner files the complaint, it appears from
Complaint §V that Cox has been in custody only since about

May 22, 2001, so that the trust fund statement should cover the
time between his being taken into custody and July 16, 2001).
Despite those omissions, Section 1915 (b) (1) expressly obligates
Cox to pay the full $150 filing fee.

Accordingly, a copy of this memorandum opinion and order is
being sent to Cox together with copies of the prescribed
Application To Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, which he is
ordered to fill out and to return to this Court in duplicate on
or before August 3, 2001. At the same time, to facilitate this
Court’s calculation of the amount that Cox must pay initially on
account of the filing fee (see Section 1915(b) (1)), a copy of
this opinion is also being sent to the authorities at the County
Jail, directing those authorities promptly to prepare and send a
copy of the required trust fund account printout to:

Honorable Milton I. Shadur
United States District Judge
219 South Dearborn Street
Room 2388

Chicago IL 60604

To turn to the substance of Cox’ Complaint, he charges there