Gritzenback et al v. United States of America et al
| Richard J. Gritzenbach, II and John Doe |
| United States of America, Polk County, Iowa, Named and Unnamed officers, officials, contractors, and witnesses, Core Civic, Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, Federal Transfer Center, Oklahoma City, Core Civic, Florence Arizona, Federal Correctional Institute, Big Spring Texas, Behavioral Services Southwest, Federal Bureau Of Prisons, Residential Re-entry Center, Administrative Offices of United States Courts and United States Department Of Justice |
| 1:2023cv03205 |
| May 22, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Elaine E Bucklo |
| John J Tharp |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal #16 is granted. All deadlines are stricken, and any pending motions are denied as moot. Civil Case Terminated. Mailed notice (air, ) |
| Filing 16 MOTION by Plaintiffs John Doe, Richard J. Gritzenbach, II for Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (jg, ) |
| Filing 15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:The plaintiff has again asked the Court to reconsider its denial of attorney representation and denial of the plaintiff's in forma pauperis application. The plaintiff argues that the intricate nature of the law and procedural requirements, the disparity in skills between himself and the defendants, and the plaintiff's mental illness justify appointment of counsel. None of these, though, have prevented the plaintiffwho has some higher educationfrom successfully litigating this case thus far by filing a coherent complaint and cogent, polished motions for reconsideration. Plaintiff may request appointment of counsel as his case progresses, but his motion #14 is again denied at this time. The motion for reconsideration to proceed in forma pauperis #13 is also denied without prejudice. In the motion, the plaintiff provides his income for each month from June 2022 through May 2023, as well as his expenses (presumably in total for that time period) for rent, utilities, groceries, basic essentials, and credit card payments. Dkt. 13 at 2 ("These figures represent the net revenue after deducting standard expenses and utilizing the standard deduction for tax purposes."). But this does not provide all of the information needed by the Court, which is laid out on the Northern District of Illinois Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form. On its own motion, the Court will extend the plaintiff's deadline to either pay the filing fee or resubmit his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to July 7, 2023. If he intends to resubmit his application, he should fill out a new form application, truthfully, in its entirety, so the Court may evaluate his allegations of poverty. Mailed notice (air, ) |
| Filing 14 MOTION by Plaintiff Richard J. Gritzenbach, II for reconsideration of appointment of counsel (jg, ) |
| Filing 13 MOTION by Plaintiff Richard J. Gritzenbach, II for reconsideration to proceed in forma pauperis (jg, ) |
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of appointment of counsel #9 is denied without prejudice. Although the Court recognizes that the plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to secure counsel by contacting many law firms, he does not explain why he is not competent to litigate his case himself. The Court is bound by Seventh Circuit case law, which requires it, among other things, to consider the plaintiff's education level and complexities of the case. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 2007). As noted previously, the plaintiff has some higher education and has filed a coherent complaint. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of his in forma pauperis status #10 is also denied. While the Court appreciates the plaintiff's detailed explanations regarding the discrepancies in his name and bank account statement, plaintiff still has not provided the Court with the information necessary to evaluate his claim (i.e. the amount of income he has received in the past 12 months). Contrary to plaintiff's characterization, money that he receives from independent contracting activities counts as a source of income or money, as indicated by question 3 of the Northern District of Illinois IFP application form. Finally, plaintiff's motion for recusal #11 is also denied. "For 'judges who were formerly AUSAs, 455(b)(3) requires some level of actual participation in a case to trigger disqualification.'" United States v. Dorsey, 829 F.3d 831, 836 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Ruzzano, 247 F.3d 688, 695 (7th Cir. 2001)). I have no reason to believe, and plaintiff has supplied none, that I was involved in any of the conduct alleged in plaintiff's complaint in my prior duties as Assistant United States Attorney. The plaintiff's deadline of 6/23/23 to either pay the filing fee or resubmit his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis remains in place. Mailed notice (air, ) |
| Filing 11 MOTION by Plaintiff Richard J. Gritzenbach, II for recusal (jg, ) |
| Filing 10 MOTION by Plaintiff Richard J. Gritzenbach, II for reconsideration to proceed in forma pauperis (Attachments) (jg, ) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office on 6/9/2023) (jg, ). |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Plaintiff Richard J. Gritzenbach, II for reconsideration of appointment of counsel (jg, ) |
Filing 8
ORDER: The plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #3 is denied. There are numerous problems. First, it is unclear whether the author of the financial affidavit is plaintiff Richard J. Gritzenbach, II, or someone else named "John Smith" purporting to act on his behalf. The bank documents appended to the application belong to "John Smith," who is not the named plaintiff in this case. Further, despite the application's declaration that the affiant is unemployed and has zero income, savings, or assets, the bank documents show that someone is receiving frequent deposits into their account from Uber and other unidentified sources. This calls into question the truthfulness and completeness of the in forma pauperis application. Next, the motion for attorney representation #4 is denied. There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 656 (7th Cir. 2007)). When considering requests for pro bono counsel, courts consider, among other factors, whether the plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel and the plaintiff's education level. Here, the plaintiff states he has attained some college education. The motion also states that the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought representation from a single firm. Many other members of the prisoner civil rights bar exist and take cases on contingency (generally meaning they only get paid if the plaintiff wins). Thus, the Court finds the plaintiff did not make a reasonable effort. Further, the plaintiff states that he has been previously represented by an attorney in a federal criminal or civil case but does not describe the case as required by the form. The plaintiff will have until 6/23/23 to either pay the filing fee or resubmit his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and clarify who is Richard J. Gritzenbach, II, and who is John Smith. If he fails to do so, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction #5 and his motion for a protective order #6 are denied without prejudice in view of the denial of Plaintiff's IFP petition and failure to pay the required filing fee. Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 6/2/2023. Mailed notice. (jg, )
|
| Filing 7 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr for all further proceedings. Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo no longer assigned to the case pursuant to 28:294(b). Signed by Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 05/30/2023. (daj, ) |
| 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. (axk, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cummings. Case assignment: Random assignment. (axk, ) |
| Filing 6 MOTION by Plaintiff Richard J. Gritzenbach, II for protective order to protect plaintiff Witnesses (axk, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Richard J. Gritzenbach, II for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (axk, ) |
| Filing 4 MOTION by Plaintiff Richard J. Gritzenbach, II for attorney representation (axk, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Richard J. Gritzenbach, II for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Exhibits) (axk, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (axk, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Richard J. Gritzenbach, II (Exhibits) (axk, ) |
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.
