Giron v. Creaspan Inc.
Plaintiff: Janeth Giron
Defendant: Creaspan Inc.
Case Number: 1:2018cv05468
Filed: August 10, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Cook
Presiding Judge: John Robert Blakey
Nature of Suit: Labor: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 3, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 3, 2018 Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Case called for an initial status hearing on 10/3/2018. Plaintiff failed to appear and failed to notify Chambers of any scheduling conflicts. Case reset for initial status hearing on 10/17/2018 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1203. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the next hearing, or face possible dismissal for want of prosecution. Mailed notice (gel, )
September 19, 2018 Filing 10 STATUS Report by Janeth Giron (Exhibits). (kp, )
August 16, 2018 Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint #1 along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis #4 and a motion for attorney representation #5 . The federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915, is designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts while simultaneously preventing indigent litigants from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Before authorizing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must make two determinations: first, the Court must determine that the litigant is unable to pay the $400 filing fee; and, second, the Court must determine that the action is neither frivolous nor malicious, does not fail to state a claim, and does not seek money damages against a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a), (e). The first determination is made through a review of the litigants assets as stated in an affidavit submitted to the Court. The second is made by looking to the plaintiffs allegations. Here, Plaintiff's financial affidavit shows that she is unemployed and has no discernible means of support. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts a claim for discrimination based on race, and her allegations are not patently frivolous. The complaint passes muster on initial review, and Plaintiff's IFP application is, therefore, granted. The Court's findings today are based upon its initial review of the complaint and are without prejudice to Defendant asserting any available defenses. Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #5 is denied because Plaintiff has made no effort to secure counsel on her own. See Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013)(before considering a pro se litigant's request for counsel, the court must first consider whether plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel). The Court directs the Clerk to issue summonses for service of the complaint on Defendant Creaspan Inc, and directs the U.S. Marshal to serve summons using the USM-285 Plaintiff submitted 7 . This case is set for an initial status hearing on 10/3/18 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1203. The parties shall file an initial status report no later than 9/19/18, using the model template set forth in this Courts standing order regarding Initial (or Reassignment) Status Conferences. If Defendant has not yet been served or appeared in the case, Plaintiff shall file an individual status report detailing the status of service and explaining why a joint report could not be filed. Failure to file the status report by 9/19/18 may result in a summary dismissal of the case. Mailed notice (gel, )
August 13, 2018 Filing 8 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (smm, )
August 13, 2018 Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (smm)
August 10, 2018 Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Janeth Giron for attorney representation. (smm)
August 10, 2018 Filing 4 APPLICATION and Financial Affidavit by Plaintiff Janeth Giron for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (smm)
August 10, 2018 Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Janeth Giron. (smm)
August 10, 2018 Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 1 copies by Janeth Giron; (Attachments). (smm)

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

Search for this case: Giron v. Creaspan Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Creaspan Inc.
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 ]
Plaintiff: Janeth Giron
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.


Why Is My Information Online?