Love v. Chicago Police Department et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|May 14, 2013
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman on 5/14/2013:The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3 ), is granted. The Court orders the trust fund officer at the plaintiff's place of incarc eration to deduct $2.24 from the plaintiff's account for payment to the Clerk of Court as an initial partial filing fee, and to continue making monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The clerk shall send a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Pinckneyville Correctional Center. However, summonses shall not issue at this time. Plaintiff's motion for attorney assistance (Dkt. No. 4 ), is granted. David A. Argay, Kerns Forst & Pearlman LLC, 70 W. Madison , Suite 5350, Chicago, IL 60602 is recruited to represent plaintiff pursuant to counsel's obligation under Local Rule 83.37. Mr. Argay is instructed to consult with his client and investigate plaintiff's claims under counsel's Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 obligation. Plaintiff is instructed to submit a proposed amended complaint by no later than June 14, 2013. If appointed counsel is unable to file an amended complaint, he should so inform the Court. The case is set for status on June 19, 2013 at 9:15 a.m. The Clerk is instructed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Argay. Defendant Chicago Police Department is dismissed. [For further details see text below.] Mailed notice (ao,)
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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.
Why Is My Information Online?