Robinson v. Dart et al
| Brandon Robinson and Michael Roberson |
| Chief Johnson and Tom Dart |
| 1:2019cv05952 |
| September 4, 2019 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Charles R Norgle |
| Civil Rights (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 23, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Brandon Robinson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Attachments) (las, ) |
Filing 7
ORDER: Plaintiff has supplemented his original unsigned and uncertified application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #3 with a document captioned "in forma pauperis application and financial affidavit 'verification notice'" #6 ; the supplement consists of a cover letter and certified trust fund ledgers. Both applications #3 #6 are denied without prejudice because they are incomplete. If Plaintiff wants to proceed with this lawsuit, he must submit a signed in forma pauperis application that attaches updated certified trust fund statements starting on September 5, 2019, through the date of compliance. Plaintiff is warned that any incorrect financial information will subject this lawsuit to dismissal, and is placed on notice that the Court can consider financial information post-dating the initiation of an action if it suggests that an inmate "intended by his commissary purchases to avoid the obligation to prepay the filing fee[]." Miller v. Hardy, 497 F. App'x 618,621 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, if Plaintiff receives enough income to pay the $400 fee after receiving this warning but elects to spend those funds on personal items, he will almost certainly not be eligible to pay the fee in installments. See Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443 (7th Cir. 2016); Merritte v. Templeton, 493 Fed. App'x 782, 784-85 (7th Cir. 2012). Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the full statutory filing fee by sending a $400 check or money order made payable to Clerk, United States District Court, to the Clerk, United States District Court, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier's Desk, 20th Floor. His payment should clearly identify his name and the case number assigned to this case. Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation [ 4] is denied without prejudice as he has not attempted to obtain counsel himself and in any event, it is too early to determine if counsel is appropriate. See Pickett v. Chicago Transit Auth., 930 F.3d 869,871 (7th Cir. 2019) (citingPruittv. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,654 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). If Plaintiff does not address his fee status by 10/25,2019, the Court will summarily dismiss this case. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank application to proceed informa pauperis, along with a copy of this order. Signed by the Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr on 9/25/2019. Mailed notice(las, )
|
| MAILED copy of order #7 and blank ifp application to plaintiff (las, ) |
| Filing 6 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Brandon Robinson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and financial affidavit "verification notice" (Exhibits). (las, ) |
| Filing 5 PRISONER CIVIL Cover Sheet (las, ) |
| Filing 4 MOTION by Plaintiff Brandon Robinson for attorney representation (Attachment) (las, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Brandon Robinson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (las, ) |
| Filing 2 PRISONER CIVIL Cover Sheet (las, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Brandon Robinson (Attachment) (las, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
