Barker v. D'Agostino
| Sandra K Barker |
| Carlo G D'Agostino |
| 1:2023cv01218 |
| February 27, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Franklin U Valderrama |
| Other Statutes: False Claims Act |
| 31 U.S.C. § 3731 Fraud |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 ENTERED JUDGMENT on 4/24/2023. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 22 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 3/21/2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, after screening the complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by 4/21/2023. R. 16 ("While [Plaintiff] mentions a dollar figure of $1,500, and that certain checks were taken away, it is not clear that Plaintiff paid this amount or suffered any damages. She neither explains the circumstances surrounding the alleged perjury or forgery nor establishes how the Defendant in this case, which apparently deals with the fallout or procedures of her state court divorce, violated her civil or other rights, or why this case otherwise belongs in federal rather than state court."). Plaintiff then sent the Court numerous emails, documented by the Court on the docket, reflecting ad hominem attacks on the Court. R. 18. The Court instructed Plaintiff to be courteous in all her interactions, and reiterated that she must file an amended complaint by 4/21/2023. Id. Plaintiff then filed a motion on 4/12/2023, but it was unclear what she was requesting the Court to do, and the Court explained that it did not construe the motion as an amended complaint. R. 20 (noting that the motion contains numerous conclusions but minimal factual allegations). Plaintiff then sent the Court additional emails resorting to ad hominem attacks. R. 21 ("The Court again emphasizes to Plaintiff that she must file an amended complaint that states a claim by 4/21/2023, or the case may be dismissed."). Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with multiple Court orders instructing her to file an amended complaint, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Pending motion #19 is denied as moot. Civil case terminated. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 21 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the purposes of establishing a clear record, the Court documents that it has received further correspondence from Plaintiff. First, Plaintiff stated, "be advised we have the very email you sent. Not enough information to show court's. Please extend this message to Franklin Valerramma [sic], we would not be more delight to here [sic] he or she is not comprehending this case. We have no regret's. We have already ade [sic] our decision to go forward. Case between Sandra k. Barker Vs. Carlo D'agostino shall and will go forward. Continue to leave the case as prompted." Next, Plaintiff stated "Leave the case Rob" and "Stay out of the court that doesn't involve you. Your fate has been known. Rob harold of Arlington height's FBI." The Court again emphasizes to Plaintiff that she must file an amended complaint that states a claim by 4/21/2023, or the case may be dismissed. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 3/21/2023, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim and instructed her to file an amended complaint by 4/21/2023. R. 16. On 4/11/2023, the Court acknowledged receiving impolite emails from Plaintiff, instructed Plaintiff to be respectful, and reiterated the 4/21/2023 deadline to file an amended complaint. Id. (again informing Plaintiff that she might consult the Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program). Plaintiff has filed a three-page "motion and complaint" alleging that she has received "inapropriate" [sic] emails from the Court's Deputy Clerk and recounting various allegations from her previous complaint. R. 19 at 1-3 (alleging that D'Agostino stole money, took "all my maintance [sic]," subjected Plaintiff to a life threatening situation on the street, took property for late payments, and forged Plaintiff's name on a check). Generously construed, the Court does not construe Plaintiff's motion as an amended complaint, as the motion contains numerous conclusions but minimal factual allegations. Plaintiff contends that the Court was "given ample evidence in the format signed sealed document." Id. at 3. However, the Court reiterates that Plaintiff need not provide any evidence at this stage of litigation. Neither must she allege any legal theories. She must simply file an amended complaint that, by telling her story, alleges sufficient facts to (1) state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and (2) "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). Plaintiff must file her amended complaint on or before 4/21/2023 or this case may be dismissed. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 19 MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra K Barker. (jk2, ) |
| Filing 18 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has received impolite email correspondence from Plaintiff. In one email, Plaintiff states only that "You ought to go back to school. Your spelling of a name is wrong, not to mention, you can not destinguish [sic] a woman's name from a man's. That tell's [sic] me a lot about your character[.]" In another email, Plaintiff informs the Court that she will be filing a motion "to be given to another Judge. Please notify Franklin Valderrama, mail box is not excepting [sic] mail as [sic] this time, I have another Judge. You are relieved from this case. Thank you." Finally, Plaintiff's third email demands that the Court "send motion forms to leave case immediately." The Court reminds Plaintiff to be courteous in all her interactions with the Court, as disrespect will not be tolerated. The Court informs Plaintiff that it has no responsibility to send her motion forms, and the forms she references do not exist. However, Plaintiff may consult the Northern District of Illinois website, see https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/OnlineForms.aspx#, or the U.S. District Court Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program, information about which can be found at: https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Pages.aspx?/2+UWDbtVzCDq3Lu8BusuQ== or 312-435-5691. This case remains with this Court, and Plaintiff is reminded that she must file an amended complaint through the Court's electronic filing (CM/ECF) system before 4/21/2023 or this case may be dismissed. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff has filed a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. R. 12. Plaintiff was last employed in April 2020, making $940.00 per month, and avers that she has only received a $150.00 link card in the past twelve months and has credit card and other debt. This level of income qualifies for waiver of the filing fee, so the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #12 is granted. Bulls v. Marsh, 1989 WL 51170, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 1989); see also Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7th Cir. 1980). However, before authorizing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must also 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); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). After filing her original complaint on 2/27/2023, consisting of five written pages and 28 pages of documentation or exhibits, Plaintiff filed a one-page written document titled "Complaint" on 3/16/2023. R. 11 ("I am ready to stand in the Court's as pro se. Based on all the fact's are documented and filed in 2017, Sept. 12, case was repeated by Carlo G. D'agostino, reproducing his own modification's, formulas to suit his own desire's. All document's, sealed and signed in 2017 and 2018. You also have before you the names of the Judges who w'ere selected and followed through on the divorce case between myself and Dale Luke. Furthermore, I am a highly intelligent being confident that all my document's will be satisfactory to the Court's."). Generously construed, the Court does not treat the new document, R. 11, as an amended complaint, but as a statement. Plaintiff's original complaint remains operative. R. 1. Gleaning what it can from that complaint, the Court understands Plaintiff to be bringing a claim against the attorney of her former husband, Dale Luke, for "perjury, forgery of checks, and several P.O. Box's sent by D'Agostino that contained court information for different Court dates in Courtroomm 1508[.]" R. 1 at 1 ("He hired myself an attorney without my agreement for $1,500.00 retainer's fee. Carlo D'Agostino went as far as to have a jury trial for a simple divorce case, which is not allowed.... D'Agostino went over Judge's decision took away Maintance [sic] and retirement check's from Nationwide given them wrong address... and name for myself."); see id. at 29 (Attorney D'Agostino is Attorney for Respondent, Dale Luke, against Petitioner Sandra Luke). The Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim. While she mentions a dollar figure of $1,500, and that certain checks were taken away, it is not clear that Plaintiff paid this amount or suffered any damages. She neither explains the circumstances surrounding the alleged perjury or forgery nor establishes how the Defendant in this case, which apparently deals with the fallout or procedures of her state court divorce, violated her civil or other rights, or why this case otherwise belongs in federal rather than state court. Accordingly, the complaint #1 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint alleging sufficient facts to plausibly state a claim. Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint on or before 4/21/2023 or this case may be dismissed. The Court directs Plaintiff's attention to the U.S. District Court Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program, information about which can be found at https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Pages.aspx?/2+UWDbtVzCDq3Lu8BusuQ== or by calling 312-435-5691. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 13 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Sandra K Barker (ak, ) |
| Filing 12 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Sandra K Barker for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ak, ) |
| Filing 11 RECEIVED AMENDED complaint by Sandra K Barker against Carlo G D'Agostino (ak, ) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 3/3/2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice because she had not fully completed the form. R. 8. Specifically, Plaintiff did not include the amount of her last monthly take home pay. R. 4 at 1. Plaintiff then filed a statement stating, in part, "as for my work, I was paid a salary of $470.00 every 2 wks." R. 9. However, Plaintiff cannot amend or otherwise complete her in forma pauperis application but supplementing it with a statement. She must fill out another form application, in its entirety, with all questions fully and truthfully answered, sign it, and re-submit the form. The Court will extend the deadline to submit the form until 3/31/2023. If Plaintiff does not submit another in forma pauperis application by 3/31/2023, this case may be dismissed. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 9 STATEMENT by Sandra K Barker (jg, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is denied at this time with leave to refile because the form is incomplete. Plaintiff avers that she was last employed "4/18" but does not include the amount of her "Last monthly take-home pay." R. 4, Question 1. Plaintiff shall refile her application to proceed in forma pauperis with the entire form completed, or pay the filing fee, by 3/24/2023 or this case may be dismissed. Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #5 is also denied without prejudice at this time. Plaintiff avers that she has not contacted any attorneys or organizations seeking representation. R. 5, Question 2 ("None. I have no representation at this time."). Plaintiff must contact at least three law firms or legal aid organizations to demonstrate that she has made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel on her own. See Pickett v. Chi. Transit Auth., 930 F.3d 869, 871 (7th Cir. 2019) ("A litigant's good faith but unsuccessful effort to obtain counsel is a necessary condition to the provision of judicial assistance to recruit a lawyer."). For legal assistance, the Court directs Plaintiff's attention to the U.S. District Court Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program, information about which can be found at: https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Pages.aspx?/2+UWDbtVzCDq3Lu8BusuQ== or 312-435-5691. Plaintiff may renew her motion for attorney representation if the case progresses; however, any renewed motion must include information about which law firms or legal aid organizations Plaintiff has contacted, as indicated above. Emailed notice (axc). |
| 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. (rp, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (rp, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra K Barker for attorney representation (rp, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Sandra K Barker for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (rp, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Sandra K Barker (rp, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (rp, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Sandra K Barker (Exhibits) (rp, ) |
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: Barker v. D'Agostino | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Sandra K Barker | |
| 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: Carlo G D'Agostino | |
| 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.
