Acevedo v. Smith et al
| Dominique C Acevedo |
| Marc D Smith, Kamitha Madkins and Illinois Department of Children and Family Services |
| 1:2023cv01079 |
| February 15, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Martha M Pacold |
| Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 31, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 ENTERED JUDGMENT Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 3/31/2023: (rao, ) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By order dated 2/24/2023, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). #5 . The court directed plaintiff that, if she believed she could address the problems identified in the order, she could submit an amended complaint by 3/23/2023. In the same 2/24/2023 order, the court also denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed that she must by 3/23/2023 submit a properly supported amended in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee. The court has not received an amended complaint, nor an amended in forma pauperis application or filing fee. Thus, the dismissal is converted to a dismissal with prejudice and the case is now closed. Enter final judgment. Civil case terminated. (rao, ) |
| MAILED amended civil rights complaint form, In Forma Pauperis Application, Order #5 dated 02/24/2023 to Dominique C Acevedo. (rc, ) |
Filing 5
ORDER: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis #3 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's IFP application appears to be either inaccurate or incomplete, and thus does not enable the court to determine whether Plaintiff lacks the means to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff's IFP application states that she has received a total of $931.00 in pensions, annuities, or life insurance, over the past 12 months and has no other income, cash, or other assets, nor any financial liabilities. #3 at 1. Yet the application also states that Plaintiff contributes $1000 in support monthly for an unnamed dependent. Id. at 2. It is unclear from the application how Plaintiff contributes more monthly than she has in yearly income, or how she secures basic necessities, such as shelter, food, or clothing. Courts rely on litigants to provide complete and honest information about their finances, and judges cannot merely rubber-stamp IFP applications that appear to contain incomplete, inaccurate, or inconsistent information. See Campbell v. Clarke, 481 F.3d 967, 970 (7th Cir. 2007). As the IFP application form states, a false statement may result in dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(A). If Plaintiff is unable to convey her financial situation through the questions on the application, Plaintiff may explain her sources of income and how she is securing basic necessities on a separate document. Further, the complaint, #1 , is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's pleading is subject to an initial screening. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[District courts have the power to screen complaints filed by all litigants, prisoners and non- prisoners alike, regardless of fee status.") (citing 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)). The Court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages against a defendant who is immune from such damages. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Courts screen complaints in the same manner they review motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2011). A complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). The statement also must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," which means that the pleaded facts must show there is "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). When screening a pro se plaintiff's complaint, courts construe the plaintiff's allegations liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Courts also must "accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim because it does not contain sufficient factual allegations; it merely states the legal conclusion that there was "Violation of civil right my child was placed at Dad's home Unlawfully." #1 at 4. While the pleading standard does not require "detailed factual allegations," it requires "more than an unadorned, the- defendant-unlawfully- harmed-me accusation." Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed. App'x 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Kaminski v. Elite Staffing, Inc., 23 F.4th 774, 777 (7th Cir. 2022) ("remind[ing] litigants, including those who find themselves having to proceed pro se, that it is not enough for a complaint to allege labels and conclusions without providing facts some short, plain, and plausible factual narrative that conveys a story that holds together") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this lawsuit, she must submit an amended complaint consistent with this order. Failure to submit an amended complaint by 3/23/2023 will result in summary dismissal of this case. The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff an amended civil rights complaint form along with a copy of this order. If Plaintiff chooses to proceed with this case, she must also by 3/23/2023 file a properly supported amended in forma pauperis application that accurately discloses all her income, assets, and financial obligations, starting twelve months prior to initiating this action and ending on the date of compliance. Alternatively, Plaintiff may prepay the $402 filing fee. Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 2/24/2023: Mailed notice. (rc, )
|
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (rc, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Case assignment: Random assignment. (rc, ) |
| Filing 4 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Dominique C Acevedo. (Received for docketing 02/22/2023) (rc, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Dominique C Acevedo for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Received for docketing 02/22/2023) (rc, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (Received for docketing 02/22/2023) (rc, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 0 copies by Dominique C Acevedo. (Received for docketing 02/22/2023) (rc, ) |
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.
