Khatoon et al v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
| Yaseem Khatoon and Ronnie's Mini Mart |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture |
| 1:2018cv06811 |
| October 10, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Gary Feinerman |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 15, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 ENTERED JUDGMENT on 11/15/2018.Mailed notice.(jlj, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:The 10/12/2018 order #7 denied Plaintiffs' in forma pauperis application; held that Plaintiff Ronnie's Mini Mart could not proceed in forma pauperis because it is an entity and not a natural person, further held that if both Plaintiffs wished to proceed with this case, they had to pay the $400.00 filing fee by 11/9/2018; and further held that if Plaintiff Khatoon wished to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff Ronnie's Mini Mart could not be a plaintiff and Plaintiff Khatoon had to file a renewed in forma papueris application by 11/9/2018. Plaintiff have not taken any action in response to the 10/12/2018 order. Accordingly, this case is dismissed for want of prosecution. Status hearing set for 11/21/2018 #7 is stricken. Enter judgment order. Civil case closed.Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is denied. Plaintiff Ronnie's Mini Mart may not proceed in forma pauperis because it is an entity, not a natural person. Plaintiff Yaseem Khatoon may not proceed in forma pauperis because, given the lack of information in the application regarding his expenses, his annual household income of $34,200 disqualifies him from pauper status. Motion for attorney representation #5 is denied. If Plaintiffs wish to proceed with this case, they must pay the $400.00 filing fee by 11/9/2018. If Plaintiff Khatoon wishes to proceed in forma pauperis, Ronnie's Mini Mart may not be a plaintiff, and Plaintiff Khatoon must file a renewed in forma pauperis application by 11/9/2018 explaining why his annual income does not disqualify him from pauper status. Status hearing set for 11/21/2018 at 9:00 a.m.Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 6 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. (aee, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Yaseem Khatoon for attorney representation. (aee, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Yaseem Khatoon for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (aee, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Yaseem Khatoon. (aee, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (aee, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Yaseem Khatoon (Exhibits). (aee, ) |
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.
