Hoeller v. Fannie Mae
| Timothy L. Hoeller |
| Fannie Mae |
| 1:2011cv01845 |
| March 16, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Lake |
| Robert M. Dow |
| Housing/Accommodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
19
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 6/9/2011: Before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to reconsider hearing 15 . In that motion, Plaintiff complains that the Court issued a written decision 14 on his then-pending motion fo r leave to proceed in forma pauperis 9 and motion to invoke options for payment of fees 12 without holding a hearing. The motion for reconsideration 15 is denied and the notice of motion date of 6/14/2011 is stricken. No appearances are necessary on that date and the case will not be called. For further explanation, please see below. Notices Mailed by Judge's Staff (tbk, )
|
|
Filing
14
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 6/6/2011: For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that Plaintiff satisfies the financial requirements to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to procee d in forma pauperis 9 is granted. Plaintiff's motion to invoke options for payment of fees 12 is denied as moot. In addition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for fail ure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is allowed 30 days from the date of this order in which to file an amended complaint. The notice of motion date of 6/7/11 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. (For further details see written opinion). Mailed notice(smm)
|
|
Filing
6
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 4/13/2011:For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 4 and motion for appointment of counsel 5 are respectfully denied without prejudice. I f Plaintiff wishes to renew his motion after clarifying the ambiguities identified below, he may do so at any time. If Plaintiff chooses not to renew his motion - or if any renewed motion is denied, Plaintiff will be obligated to pay the filing fee and serve the summons and complaint on Defendant. (For further detail see written opinion). Mailed notice(smm)
|
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 Northern 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: Hoeller v. Fannie Mae | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Timothy L. Hoeller | |
| 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: Fannie Mae | |
| 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.
