Grafton v. FoBelk et al
| Craig Grafton |
| Gilliland, Chicago Police Department, Bollard and FoBelk |
| 1:2018cv06099 |
| September 6, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John J Tharp |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 17, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Status hearing held and continued to 11/6/18 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff did not appear. The Chicago Police Department is not a suable entity and is therefore dismissed as a defendant sua sponte. Defendants' obligation to answer the complaint is stayed. Plaintiff is required to attend all status hearings. Failure to appear may result in the dismissal of the case for want of prosecution. Mailed notice (air, ) |
| Filing 13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Bollard, FoBelk, Gilliland by Max Christian Boose (Boose, Max) |
| Filing 12 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Bollard, FoBelk, Gilliland by Scott A. Cohen (Cohen, Scott) |
| Filing 11 MOTION by Plaintiff Craig Grafton for appointment of counsel (Exhibits) (mma, ) |
| Filing 10 COMPLAINT filed by Craig Grafton; Jury Demand. (jk, ) |
Filing 9
ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is granted. The Court appoints the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendant. The Clerk is directed to provide the Forms 285 completed by Plaintiff to the Marshal. The Court directs the U.S. Marshal to make all reasonable efforts to serve Defendants. The Court authorizes the U.S. Marshal to send a request for waiver of service to Defendant in the manner prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) before attempting personal service. Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #4 is denied without prejudice to renewal later in this case. "There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation," Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014), but the Court has discretion to request that an attorney represent an indigent litigant on a volunteer basis under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). The Court declines to do so at this time because Plaintiff's motion does not show what effort he made to retain counsel on his own; he simply says that all of his efforts (whatever they were) were unsuccessful. That is inadequate to show a diligent effort to obtain counsel. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc); Russell v. Bukowski, 608 F.App'x 426, 428 (7th Cir. 2015) ("[B]efore a district court is required to consider recruiting counsel to assist a litigant in a civil case, the litigant must make a reasonable attempt to secure counsel for himself."). The Court also is unable to determine at this early stage of the litigation whether Plaintiff is capable of proceeding effectively without counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation (Dkt. #4 ) is denied without prejudice to renewal later in this case. A status hearing is set on October 11, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff is required to attend in person; failure to appear for scheduled hearings may result in dismissal of the case for want of prosecution. Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 9/10/2018. Mailed notice (jk, )
|
| SUMMONS Issued along with USM 285 form(s), certified copy of order dated 09/10/2018 #9 to the U.S. Marshal's Office for service as to Defendants Bollard, Chicago Police Department, FoBelk, and Gilliland via email. (jk, ) |
| 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. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Craig Grafton for attorney representation. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Craig Grafton for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Craig Grafton. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (nsf, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 4 copies by Craig Grafton (nsf, ) |
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 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.
