Morrow v. Village of Oak Lawn
| Richard P. Morrow |
| Village of Oak Lawn |
| 1:2020cv07678 |
| December 22, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Robert Blakey |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: On 1/11/21, this Court advised Plaintiff that if he wished to pursue this case he had to pay the filing fee by 2/5/21 or the Court would dismiss the case. See #8 . Plaintiff failed to comply with this order, and he has not otherwise communicated with the Court. Accordingly, consistent with the Court's prior order #8 , this case is dismissed. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: 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 litigant's assets as stated in an affidavit submitted to the Court. The second is made by looking to the plaintiff's allegations. An action is frivolous if it is clear that the legal theory or the facts alleged are baseless or irrational. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324; Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). Based upon its review of Plaintiff's submissions, the Court denies Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #3 because the monthly income disclosed (either $5,124 or $6,474, depending on whether the assets disclosed in response to question 4(F) include the assets disclosed in response to question 3) make him ineligible for pauper status, particularly because he has no dependents. Additionally, the Court dismisses the complaint as to Defendant Scott Oneill, as the only action alleged by this Defendant occurred on 9/24/16, see #1 at 4, and any claim based upon this allegation comes too late. See, e.g., Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cty. & Mun. Employees, Council 31; AFL-CIO, 942 F.3d 352, 361 (7th Cir. 2019) (Section 1983 does not have its own organic statute of limitations but rather borrows the state statute of limitations for personal-injury actions; in Illinois, this is two years.); Day v. Niles Township High Sch. Dist. 219 Bd. Of Ed., No. 20 C 5772, 2020 WL 7641273, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2020) ("the statute of limitations for section 1983 claims is two years, which typically runs from the date of the wrongdoing."). It does not appear from the Court's initial screening that Plaintiff's claims against the other defendants are time barred; nor does it appear that the current claims related to the claims asserted in Plaintiff's prior lawsuit, 17-cv-07496. If the claims turn out to be related, they too may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations or under the doctrine of res judicata. The Court cautions Plaintiff to consider his claims carefully before paying the filing fee or submitting an amended complaint, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which authorizes sanctions for the filing of frivolous claims, applies to pro se litigants as well as attorneys. See Ma v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 19-CV-3367, 2020 WL 533702, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2020), aff'd, No. 20-1500, 2020 WL 6257028 (7th Cir. Oct. 23, 2020), reh'g denied (Nov. 12, 2020). Finally, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for counsel #5 because Plaintiff has not demonstrated indigence. Plaintiff also is a college graduate with prior litigation experience, and these facts also weigh against granting his motion. See Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014) ("There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation," 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) if, after finding that plaintiff has made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel on his own behalf or been effectively precluded from doing so, the court finds that given the factual and legal complexity of the case, this particular plaintiff appears incompetent to litigate the matter himself, considering, among other factors, plaintiff's submissions and pleadings); Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007)(in deciding whether the recruit counsel the court should also consider plaintiff's capabilities, including intelligence, literacy, degree of education, communication skills, and litigation experience). If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, he must pay the filing fee by 2/5/21 or the case will be dismissed. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Richard P. Morrow for attorney representation (mc, ) |
| Filing 4 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Richard P. Morrow (mc, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Richard P. Morrow for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (mc, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (mc, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Richard P. Morrow (mc, ) |
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
| Search for this case: Morrow v. Village of Oak Lawn | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Richard P. Morrow | |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Village of Oak Lawn | |
| 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.
