Harris v. City of Bloomington et al
| Rakeem Harris |
| City of Bloomington, Adam Stone, Taylor Turner, Steven Statz, Aaron Veerman, Alejandro Vasquez and Bloomington Police Department |
| 1:2023cv01417 |
| November 9, 2023 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| Michael M Mihm |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 5, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER: DENYING Plaintiff's #8 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on the grounds that Plaintiff claims he cannot afford to pay a process server. On 11/28/2023, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP highlighting several reasons the Court found Plaintiff was falsely representing his net worth to obtain IFP status. (D. 3). Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Reconsider his IFP application. (D. 5). On 12/07/2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, highlighting several of Plaintiff's statements that affirmed the Court made the correct decision in questioning the veracity of Plaintiff's truthfulness in his disclosures to the Court. See Text Order entered on 12/07/2023. The Court further found that Plaintiff had no expenses and possessed $543.00 in a bank account which could be used to cover the filing fee. On 12/11/2023, Plaintiff paid the filing fee. Plaintiff is again asking for the Court to grant him IFP status claiming he only has $131.84 in cash or a savings account, and an inoperative 2006 motorcycle. The Court continues to have the same concerns regarding Plaintiff's credibility for the reasons discussed in prior orders. Furthermore, the Court encourages Plaintiff to review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules regarding summons and service, and more specifically waiver of service, which would significantly reduce potential costs to the Plaintiff and would certainly be covered by the funds he has available. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Accordingly, Plaintiff's #8 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 01/05/2023. (ED)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Rakeem Harris. Responses due by 1/5/2024 (JS) |
| Filing 7 Summons Issued as to Bloomington Police Department, City of Bloomington, Steven Statz, Adam Stone, Taylor Turner, Alejandro Vasquez, Aaron Veerman. (JS) |
| Filing fee: $402, receipt number PIA00003660. (JS) |
| Filing 6 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT in support of Motion to Reconsider Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by Rakeem Harris. (TC) |
|
TEXT ORDER: DENYING Plaintiff's #5 Motion to Reconsider in forma pauperis. On 11/28/2023 the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP highlighting several reasons the Court found Plaintiff was falsely representing his net worth in order to obtain IFP status. (D. 3). The first paragraph of Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider affirms the Court made the correct decision. (see D. 5, 1). There, Plaintiff states that the Court misunderstood that the "Black SUV or sedan" referenced in the Complaint was the Plaintiff's and claims he was referring to someone named Caleb's car. Id. Re-reviewing the Complaint, Plaintiff infers he was targeted by the Bloomington Police Officer Turner stating, "Turner already knew Plaintiff's car. Turner has seen Plaintiff entering and exiting his car" (D. 1, p. 8) (emphasis added). Plaintiff goes on to state that Turner then radioed his supervisor and requested "that he catch up with a Black SUV or Sedan because he thought it might have contained another person of interest. Caleb Wissmiller." Id. There was no misunderstanding by the Court that Plaintiff is referring to his own car under the Second Claim the Complaint. Plaintiff then goes on to argue several points about the relevance of his assets in 2021, largely missing the point the Court was making about his inconsistent IFP petitions in other cases leading the Court to question the veracity of Plaintiff's truthfulness here. For instance, Plaintiff filed an amended IFP petition on 07/06/2023 in Harris v. Renken, et al., 23-cv-01213-JES-JEH, D. 3, (after his first IFP petition was dismissed without prejudice based the Court questioning the veracity of Plaintiff's truthfulness), where he swore that he has not been in possession of a vehicle since June 2021. However, here, Plaintiff's own allegations establish he had possession of vehicle in November 2021. (see D. 1, pp. 4, 8). The Court further notes that Plaintiff has no expenses and $543.00 in a bank account which has been unneeded and untouched since he filed his amended IFP petition in 23-cv-01213 in July 2023 that could cover the filing fee. Accordingly, Defendant's #5 Motion to Reconsider is DENIED, and Defendant's #4 Emergency Motion for Extension of Time is dismissed as MOOT. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/7/2023. (TK)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Reconsideration re #3 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by Plaintiff Rakeem Harris. Responses due by 12/20/2023. (Attachments: #1 Attachment 1, #2 Attachment 2) (TC) |
| Filing 4 EMERGENCY MOTION for Extension of Time Until After Motion to Reconsider is Decided by Plaintiff Rakeem Harris. Responses due by 12/19/2023. (TC) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 11/28/2023. The Court finds Plaintiff has falsely understated his net worth to obtain in forma pauperis status. Accordingly, Plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP is DENIED. The Court declines addressing the merits of the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint at this time. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee in full if he wishes to advance this litigation. Failure to pay the filing fee in full within fourteen (14) days of the Order will result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute. See full written Order.(JS)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Rakeem Harris. Responses due by 11/24/2023 (AH) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Rakeem Harris.(AH) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
