Cole v. St. Marys et al
| Tyshawn Cole |
| St. Marys and Kankakee Courthouse |
| 2:2024cv02254 |
| November 6, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Eric I Long |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 12, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 JUDGMENT entered. (BMG) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 12/12/2024. Plaintiff has filed a pro se Complaint #1 accompanied by an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs #2 and a Motion to Request Counsel #3 . Where a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a), the district court has an obligation to screen complaints before service on the defendants. Suess v. Obama, 2014 WL 293817, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 27, 2014); 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2). A plaintiff's pro se complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff's Complaint is gibberish. His primary "allegation" seems to be: "have for him not allowing him to drive guardian i3.8 Dallas 200 overseas has already just not letting him drive." Other portions of his Complaint are somehow less coherent: "Pri outtake to maine cour.t.hou.se Pa.rk forest kzsentu station how hot galaeseseste fran.k.l.i.n." Most of the Complaint seems to be comprised random keystrokes. Plaintiff's Complaint #1 is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and his accompanying Motions #2 and #3 are likewise DENIED. The dismissal is without prejudice, but Plaintiff is not granted leave to amend. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992) (noting that leave to amend may be denied where it is clear that no amendment would cure frivolous allegations). This matter is hereby TERMINATED.(BMG)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Tyshawn Cole. Responses due by 11/20/2024 (JS) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Tyshawn Cole. Responses due by 11/20/2024 (JS) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Kankakee Courthouse, St. Marys, filed by Tyshawn Cole. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Blank Summons and USM, #3 Envelope)(JS) |
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.
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 12/12/2024. Plaintiff has filed a pro se Complaint #1 accompanied by an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs #2 and a Motion to Request Counsel #3 . Where a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a), the district court has an obligation to screen complaints before service on the defendants. Suess v. Obama, 2014 WL 293817, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 27, 2014); 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2). A plaintiff's pro se complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff's Complaint is gibberish. His primary "allegation" seems to be: "have for him not allowing him to drive guardian i3.8 Dallas 200 overseas has already just not letting him drive." Other portions of his Complaint are somehow less coherent: "Pri outtake to maine cour.t.hou.se Pa.rk forest kzsentu station how hot galaeseseste fran.k.l.i.n." Most of the Complaint seems to be comprised random keystrokes. Plaintiff's Complaint #1 is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and his accompanying Motions #2 and #3 are likewise DENIED. The dismissal is without prejudice, but Plaintiff is not granted leave to amend. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992) (noting that leave to amend may be denied where it is clear that no amendment would cure frivolous allegations). This matter is hereby TERMINATED.(BMG)