You're viewing Docket Item 6 from the case Bynum v. Cook County Department Of Corrections. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case: 1:13-cv-03967 Document #: 6 Filed: 06/04/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:14

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

EASTERN DIVISION

JEROME W. BYNUM #20130525132,

Plaintiff,

v.

COOK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 13 C 3967

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Jerome Bynum (“Bynum”) has used the Clerk’s-Office-supplied

form of 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) Complaint to sue the
Cook County Department of Corrections (“Department”). Quite
apart from the fact that the Department is not a suable legal
entity (and even if it were, it would still not be the proper
defendant in an action such as that sought to be advanced by
Bynum), the Complaint is so skeletal in nature as to call for a
sua sponte dismissal--albeit without prejudice.

Here is the totality of Bynum’s Statement of Claim as set

out in Complaint ¶IV:

We were sleeping and eating in a condemned building
with asbestos everywhere.

Even though Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)(per
curiam) calls for reading prisoners’ pro se complaints through a
generous lens, that totally nonparticularized assertion does not
qualify as a viable claim of the deprivation of a constitutional
right cognizable under Section 1983. Indeed, Bynum has alleged

Case: 1:13-cv-03967 Document #: 6 Filed: 06/04/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:15

so little that this Court could not even begin to suggest what
type of fleshing out might suffice to meet the plausibility
standard announced in the Twombly-Iqbal canon.

Accordingly both the Complaint and this action are dismissed

for failure to state a claim (see 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1)). 1
Under the circumstances, as stated earlier, this dismissal is
without prejudice to Bynum’s possible ability to shape a claim
that would satisfy the Twombly-Iqbal standard.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 4, 2013

1

Because Bynum’s current effort was so woefully

inadequate, this Court will not stick him with the obligation to
pay the $350 filing fee in installments, as 28 U.S.C. §1915
requires. If he tries again, however, he must accompany his In
Forma Pauperis Application (the current version of which is
denied as moot) with a printout of the transactions in his trust
fund account at the institution or institutions where he has been
in custody for the entire six-month period before he files suit.

2