Smith v. City of Chicago et al
| Matthew Smith |
| City of Chicago, Officer Gallagher, Officer Avendt and Officer Ryan |
| 1:2023cv02199 |
| April 7, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Robert W Gettleman |
| Franklin U Valderrama |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| SUMMONS Issued along with USM 285 form(s), certified copy of order dated 05/10/2023 to the U.S. Marshal's Office for service as to Defendants Officer Avendt, City of Chicago, Officer Gallagher, Officer Ryan. (rc, ) |
| Filing 14 COMPLAINT filed by Matthew Smith. RC (rc, ) |
| Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 4/20/2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application for a second time without prejudice because Plaintiff again failed to include his dates of last employment and last monthly take home pay, and failed to explain how he has provided for life's basic necessities in the past year. R. 11 (giving Plaintiff "one more chance to fill out another in forma pauperis application, complete all questions in full, truthfully, and explain on the form how he has provided for life's basic necessities in the past year."). Plaintiff has filed a third application to proceed in forma pauperis, averring that he has SNAP income of $287.00 per month but otherwise has "no income and reside[s] with [his] Dad." R. 12 at 2. That explains how Plaintiff has provided for basic living necessities. While Plaintiff still fails to fill in the dates of his last employment and his last monthly take-home pay, the Court has enough information to conclude that Plaintiff qualifies for IFP status. See R. 10 at 1 ("Plaintiff has been unemployed for years"). Plaintiff's application to proceed without paying fees or costs #12 is therefore granted. The Court has also screened the complaint and finds that Plaintiff has stated a viable claim at this stage. R. 1 at 1-2 (alleging that Defendants violated his 4th and 14th amendment rights by approaching his vehicle at a gas station without probable cause and seized him). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), the Court orders the United States Marshal's office to serve Defendants. See R. 6 (summonses); R. 7 (completed USM-285 forms). While Plaintiff has submitted the USM-285 forms on the docket, in an abundance of caution, Plaintiff should complete USM-285 summons forms for each Defendant and submit them to the Marshal's office. For reference, the forms can be found here: https://www.usmarshals.gov/process/usm285.pdf. The Marshal's office will not attempt to serve Defendants unless and until the completed USM-285 summons forms are received. The Court advises Plaintiff to provide as much identifying information about Defendants as possible. On or before 06/09/2023, Plaintiff shall submit a status report regarding service of Defendants. Mailed notice. (kp, ) |
| Filing 12 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Matthew Smith for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (jk2, ) |
| Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 4/13/2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application because he (1) failed to include his dates of last employment and last monthly take-home pay, or indicate that he has never been employed, and (2) failed to explain how he has provided for life's basic necessities in the past year. R. 9 (giving Plaintiff until 5/9/2023 to refile his application). Plaintiff has filed another application to proceed in forma pauperis, but it suffers from the exact same deficiencies. In response to the question "Are you employed?" Plaintiff does not check "Yes" or "No," instead stating simply that "Plaintiff has been unemployed for years." R. 10 at 1. This implies that Plaintiff has been employed at some time in his life, yet he fails to include the dates of his last employment or his last monthly take-home pay. Id. He must answer these questions or explain why he cannot answer them. Further, Plaintiff again indicates that he has no assets, income, or property at all, instead stating only that he "is unable to pay the filing fee because he owes the state of Illinois $250,000 in child support." But Plaintiff's alleged debt is not determinative regarding his ability to pay the filing fee. And despite explicit instructions from the Court, see R. 9, Plaintiff has again failed to explain how he has managed to provide for life's basic necessities during the past year. For these reasons, Plaintiff's application #10 is again denied without prejudice. The Court will give Plaintiff one more chance to fill out another in forma pauperis application, complete all questions in full, truthfully, and explain on the form how he has provided for life's basic necessities in the past year. Plaintiff shall file an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis on or before 5/18/2023. If Plaintiff fails to file an application, or his application again fails to fully answer all questions or explain how he provided for life's basic necessities, the case may be dismissed or he may be required to pay the filing fee to proceed with this case. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 10 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Matthew Smith for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (rc, ) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application does not include his "Date(s) of last employment" nor does it include his "Last monthly take-home pay" (or indicate "N/A" for these fields). R. 3 1. Also, importantly, Plaintiff avers that he has received zero income in the past twelve months and has zero assets. Id. at 12. It is not clear how he paid for basic living necessities, if he truly had no sources of money. He must provide accurate financial information for a full year, and if the responses on sources of money remain zero, then he must explain in writing on the application form itself how he obtained living necessities. "To qualify for IFP status, a plaintiff must fully disclose [his] financial condition, and [he] must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury." Effinger v. Monterrey Sec. Consultants, 546 F. Supp. 3d 715, 71718 (N.D. Ill. 2021) ("[C]ourts routinely infer an intent to deceive when the plaintiff offers excuses that are implausible or do not hold up on the record."); see Robie v. Thompson, No. 22-cv-06354, Dkt. 5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2022) (declining to "accept the implausible claim that [Plaintiff] obtained the basic necessities of life during the portion of the past year when he was not in custody with no visible means of support. [Plaintiff] is placed on notice that the court gives pro se litigants wide latitude but will not overlook incorrect sworn information provided on forms designed to elicit basic financial information from unrepresented individuals."). For those reasons, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis #3 is denied without prejudice with leave to refile. He must fill out another form, answering every question, and if he received no income or money, he must explain in writing on the form how he provided for life's basic necessities. If Plaintiff does not file an amended in forma pauperis application on or before 5/9/2023, this case may be dismissed. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a motion for attorney representation. R. 4. But his motion indicates only that he "has contacted several attorneys," and he does not name them. Plaintiff must name the attorneys and organizations he has contacted. R. 4 ("I declare that I have contacted the following attorneys/organizations seeking representation...") (emphasis added). Plaintiff must contact at least three law firms or legal aid organizations to demonstrate that he has made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel on his 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 this reason, Plaintiff's motion #4 is also denied without prejudice with leave to refile on or before 5/9/2023. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 8 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama for all further proceedings pursuant to 28:294(b). Honorable Robert W. Gettleman no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 4/8/23.(nsf, ) |
| Filing 5 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Matthew Smith. (jj, ) |
| Filing 4 MOTION by Plaintiff Matthew Smith for attorney representation. (jj, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Matthew Smith for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (jj, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (jj, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 1 copies by Matthew Smith. (jj, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jj, ) |
| 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. (jj, ) |
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.
