Smith v. Village Of Crestwood et al
| Briana D. Smith |
| Village Of Crestwood, Crestwood Police Department, Corley and AT&T Inc |
| 1:2023cv03030 |
| May 15, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Franklin U Valderrama |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 7, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 SUMMONS (USM-285) Returned Executed as to AT&T Inc on 11/7/2023, answer due 11/28/2023. (daj, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued along with USM 285 form(s), certified copy of order dated 10/20/2023 to the U.S. Marshal's Office for service as to defendant AT&T Inc, Corley, Crestwood Police Department, Village Of Crestwood via email. (aee, ) |
| Filing 18 COMPLAINT filed by Briana D. Smith. (aee, ) |
Filing 17
ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's complaint #1 , and finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim such that it survives screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) #16 and grants Plaintiff's motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs and fees associated with filing this action, and thus, the filing fee is waived. Because Plaintiff has been authorized to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), the Court orders the United States Marshal's office to serve Defendants. The Marshal is authorized to mail a request for waiver of service to Defendants in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting personal service. The completed USM-285 forms for Defendants are available at R. 6. Because Defendants have not yet been served, the Court sets the joint initial status report deadline to 12/20/2023. The parties should use the Court's template available at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Valderrama's name and then again on the link entitled 'Joint Initial Status Report.' If Defendants have not yet been served as of that date, Plaintiff should file a status report so stating. 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. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 10/20/2023. Mailed notice (aee, )
|
| Filing 16 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Briana D. Smith for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (aee, ) |
| Filing 15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to reinstate the case #14 . The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") #12 and denies Plaintiff's motion. To determine whether a litigant is indigent, many judges in this district use the United States Health and Human Services ("HHS poverty guidelines (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). The HHS poverty guidelines for 2023 for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia set the poverty level for a household of two at $19,720. Plaintiff's IFP application lists her monthly income as "$4,000." Plaintiff does not include any other sources of income in her IFP application. In the IFP application, Plaintiff states she has one dependent. Based upon the information provided in the IFP application, Plaintiff's household is well above the HHS's poverty threshold. Plaintiff lists several financial obligations, and states that "[t]he Plaintiff doesn't have any money left over after buying food, and supplies for my house." However, based upon the information included in Plaintiff's IFP application, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff cannot pay the $402 filing fee. As such, Plaintiff's IFP motion is denied without prejudice. By 09/21/2023, Plaintiff must either pay the $402 filing fee, or file an amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis detailing why Plaintiff's income is insufficient to pay the filing fee. Failure to file an amended IFP application or pay the filing fee by this deadline may result in dismissal of the lawsuit. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 14 MOTION by Plaintiff Briana D. Smith to reinstate case. (aee, ) |
| Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #12 . Before the Court can vacate its prior order dismissing this case [10, 11], Plaintiff must file a motion to reinstate the case and vacate the prior dismissal. Once this case is reinstated, the Court can then rule on Plaintiff's motion. The Court directs Plaintiff to file a motion to reinstate the case and vacate the prior dismissal by 09/01/2023. The Court recommends that Plaintiff utilize the resources provided by the U.S. District Court Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program in preparing a motion to reinstate the case and vacate the prior dismissal, 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 12 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Briana D. Smith for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (aee, ) |
| Filing 11 ENTERED JUDGMENT on 8/9/2023. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 06/28/2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice with leave to refile. Plaintiff was warned that if she did not file an amended in forma pauperis application, or pay the $402 filing fee, on or before 07/12/2023, this case may be dismissed #8 . As of today's date, the Court has not received an amended in forma pauperis application, or the $402 filing fee, as required. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion for order to show cause #7 . In the motion, Plaintiff requests "an answer from this court." To the extent Plaintiff is requesting an update from the Court, the Court has denied Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application, but is providing Plaintiff additional time to refile that completed application, or to pay the $402 filing fee. On that basis, Plaintiff's motion to show cause #7 is denied. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is denied without prejudice with leave to refile because Plaintiff avers that she has received zero income in the past twelve months and has zero assets. It is not clear how Ms. Smith paid for basic living necessities, if she truly had no sources of money. For example, although Ms. Smith states that she receives unspecified amounts of food stamps and aid in Paragraph 5 of the application, in Paragraph 3 Ms. Smith includes no amount for unemployment, public assistance, or welfare. Ms. Smith must provide complete and accurate financial information for a full year, and if the responses on sources of money remains zero, then she must explain in writing on the application how she obtained living necessities. Ms. Smith must provide this information so the Court can evaluate the application. "To qualify for IFP status, a plaintiff must fully disclose her financial condition, and she 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."). If Plaintiff does not file an amended in forma pauperis application, or pay the $402 filing fee, on or before 07/12/2023, this case may be dismissed Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 7 MOTION by Plaintiff Briana D. Smith for order to show cause. (aee, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Briana D. Smith for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (aee, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Briana D. Smith. (aee, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (aee, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Briana D. Smith. (aee, ) |
| 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. (aee, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (aee, ) |
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.
