Harris v. Doe, Case No. 14 C 10121

• Citation: 78 F.Supp.3d 894
• Decision Date: 29 January 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 14 C 10121, Case No. 14 C 10401
• Parties: Cord Harris (#2011–1230206), Plaintiff, v. Officer John Doe, et al., Defendants. Cord Harris (#2011–1230206), Plaintiff, v. Officer Edwards, et al., Defendants.
• Court: United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)

78 F.Supp.3d 894

Cord Harris (#2011–1230206), Plaintiff

v.Officer John Doe, et al., Defendants.

Cord Harris (#2011–1230206), Plaintiff

v.Officer Edwards, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 14 C 10121

Case No. 14 C 10401

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed January 29, 2015

William R. Pokorny, Franczek Radelet PC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge

Under this District Court's LR40.3(b)(1)(B), pro se plaintiff Cord Harris (“Harris”) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is this Court's “pen pal” for all lawsuits alleging deprivations of civil rights. Because this Court had received Harris' first such action via random assignment in Case No. 13 C 801, Harris' next such lawsuit (Case No. 13 C 5470) was accordingly assigned directly to this Court's calendar, and that procedure has most recently been followed in Case Nos. 14 C 10121 and 14 C 10401.

In Case No. 13 C 801 Harris paid the filing fee and has been represented by retained counsel from the outset. But beginning with Case No. 13 C 5470 and continuing with the two cases filed in December 2014 Harris has sought to invoke the special in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status that Congress has created for prisoner plaintiffs in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (“Section 1915 ”), in each instance utilizing the In Forma Pauperis Application (“Application”) form provided by this District Court Clerk's Office for that purpose.¹

Regrettably information recently uncovered by one of the able attorneys in the Staff Attorney's Office, James Dvorak, has exposed Harris as having provided false information and as gaming the system in a way that distorts Section 1915's purpose. Although Harris represented in his November 20, 2014 Application that he had not received more than $200 in funds over the preceding 12 months from any of the numerous categories listed in the Application, including the catchall category “any other source,” his trust fund account reflects a $3,000 deposit in February 2014. And that false representation was made more egregious by Harris' quick withdrawal of most of that $3,000 by writing checks to a “friend” or “friends” (it is unclear from the trust fund printout whether one or more persons was or were involved in the arrangement, but the analysis is the same in either event), who in turn later redeposited those funds into his account over the next several months—redeposits that Harris promptly expended on commissary items well before he filed his suits in December. Indeed, though Case No. 14 C 10121 is grounded on an asserted attack on Harris by a fellow prisoner in July 2014, he did not file that suit until December 16—at a time when his trust fund account balance (in consequence of the just-described pattern of deposits followed by commissary expenditures that exhausted the account) had again been reduced to $0.

It is exceedingly clear that in reality Harris' arrangement with his “friend” or “friends” was one in which the funds were and remain Harris', with that person or those persons acting as an interim repository holding the funds for him. And that means that Harris' qualification or disqualification for IFP status must be viewed in that light.

Recently columnist Phil Rosenthal of the Chicago Tribune wrote a piece about the current controversy...