Howell v. The Chronister Oil Company
| Nache Howell |
| The Chronister Oil Company |
| 1:2024cv01378 |
| October 7, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 5, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Amanda Tzivas on behalf of The Chronister Oil Company (Tzivas, Amanda) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Thomas H Luetkemeyer on behalf of The Chronister Oil Company (Luetkemeyer, Thomas) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Ambrose V McCall on behalf of The Chronister Oil Company (McCall, Ambrose) |
| Filing 9 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT - ORIGINAL SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED UNREDACTED (DW) |
| Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Nache Howell. The Chronister Oil Company served on 11/19/2024, answer due 12/10/2024. (DW) |
TEXT ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on 11/17/2024. This case and the corresponding hearings are reassigned to Judge Jonathan E. Hawley for further proceedings.
|
|
Text Order entered by District Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 11/17/2024: All counsel must read and be familiar with both the Standing Order and the Temporary Standing Order Pending Appointment of a Peoria Magistrate Judge, both of which can be found on the Central District of Illinois website (www.ilcd.uscourts.gov) under clerks office/local rules and Orders/Orders & Rules by Judge/Standing Order in Civil Cases.
|
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on 11/17/2024. Due to Judge Jonathan E. Hawley's confirmation as a District Judge, this case is no longer referred to Judge Jonathan E. Hawley. Any previously scheduled hearings are reset before the presiding judge.
|
| Filing 7 Summons Issued as to The Chronister Oil Company. Summons returned to U.S. Marshals to effectuate service. (DW) |
|
TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 11/1/2024. The Clerk of Court is directed to forward Plaintiff blank copies of the summons forms. Plaintiff must complete the summons and return to the Clerk for issuance within 14 days of this Order. Upon receipt of the completed summons by the Clerk, the United States Marshal Service is directed to serve the complaint and summons upon Defendants at no cost to Plaintiff. (DW)
|
|
Text Order entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 10/31/2024. Plaintiff Nache Howell has filed a pro se civil-rights complaint, accompanied by an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and a Motion to Request Counsel. The Court reviews Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepaying court fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. 1915, designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The court must deny an application if: (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is frivolous; (3) the action fails to state a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Here, Plaintiff's application was submitted under penalty of perjury and sufficiently demonstrates that she should be excused from paying the filing fee in bringing her non-frivolous lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. "There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation," however. Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014). When evaluating a motion to request counsel, the Court must consider: "(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it [herself]?" Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 2007). "When evaluating a plaintiff's competence, district courts should normally consider the plaintiff's literacy, communication skills, education level, and litigation experience." Bracey v. Grondin, 712 F.3d 1012, 1018 n.3 (7th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff's papers fail to mention, let alone discuss, her efforts to obtain counsel. Her pleadings and motion papers, however, have been reasonably coherent and supported by accompanying exhibits; and there is no indication that she has any physical or psychological condition that might impair her ability to litigate this case herself. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel without prejudice; Plaintiff may renew the motion as the underlying circumstances may change to warrant an appointment of counsel. (DW)
|
| Filing 6 Mail Returned as Undeliverable, re #1 . Mail sent to Nache Howell. Mail re-sent to corrected address. (DW) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of USM-285 form. (DW) |
| Filing 4 Notice of Proposed Summons. (DW) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Nache Howell. Responses due by 10/22/2024 (DW) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Nache Howell. Responses due by 10/22/2024 (DW) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against The Chronister Oil Company, filed by Nache Howell. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits Part 1, #2 Exhibits Part 2, #3 Exhibits Part 3, #4 Exhibits Part 4, #5 Exhibits Part 5, #6 Civil Cover Sheet)(DW) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US 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
| Search for this case: Howell v. The Chronister Oil Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Nache Howell | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: The Chronister Oil Company | |
| Represented By: | Amanda Tzivas |
| Represented By: | Thomas H Luetkemeyer |
| Represented By: | Ambrose V McCall |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
