On January 1, 2001, an individual inmate filed two separate Section 1983 suits against prison officials in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff's first suit, 3:01-CV-50027 (the 027 case), challenged prison officials' policy of allowing only five stamped envelopes per month to certain "C" grade psychiatric unit prisoners. The second suit, 3:01-CV-50354 (the 354 case), sought to enjoin the officials from censoring inmate mail absent a hearing. On April 27, 2001 and October 1, 2001 respectively, the District Court (Judge Philip G. Reinhard) granted plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel, appointing David H. Carter to represent the plaintiff in the 027 case, and Robert A. Calgaro to represent him in the 354 case.
On January 30, 2003, the parties reached settlement agreements in both cases.
Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment in the 027 case, and subsequently in the 354 case as well. In the 027 case, plaintiff contended that the prison officials had agreed to change their mail policy on a prison-wide basis, but had implemented the change only with respect to the plaintiff. Defendants filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreements in both cases.
On May 13, 2003, the Magistrate (Judge P. Michael Mahoney) recommended that the District Court deny plaintiff's motions. Jarrett v. Roth, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8022. In the 027 case, the judge explained that the remedy was intended to apply only to the plaintiff. In the 354 case, the judge found plaintiff's motion to vacate untimely.
Plaintiff appealed the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, and on May 27, 2003, the District Court (Judge Philip G. Reinhard) denied plaintiff's motions to vacate judgment and granted defendants' motion to enforce settlement. Jarrett v. Roth, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8767. On June 25, 2003, the plaintiff attempted to appeal to the Seventh Circuit from the minute order. The plaintiff was unsuccessful and his case was dismissed on September 5, 2003 for a failure to pay the required docketing fee. The docketing fee was required because the Court found the Plaintiff's appeal was taken in bad faith and denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on July 24, 2003.
The plaintiff wrote a letter to the Northern District of Illinois Court to enforce the settlement agreement filed by the court, alleging that he had never received the $200.00 that was the financial portion of the settlement agreement. The defendant's responded on May 12, 2005, finding that the Comptroller of the State of Illinois issued a check to Plaintiff in the required amount. This was verified by a printout of Plaintiff's trust fund account from Dixon Correctional Center and the vendor warrant page of Illinois Comptroller's web-site. The court held that, even if the court found that it had jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, there is no need for a hearing. The plaintiffs' request from April 19, 2005 for a hearing was denied. Chris Sullivan - 07/28/2005
Christina Bonanni - 10/27/2013