Williams v. FoodRocket
| Marcealous Williams |
| FoodRocket and Foodcast |
| 1:2023cv14484 |
| October 4, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Martha M Pacold |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 14, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Marcealous Williams for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (jn, ) |
| MAILED a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis to Marcealous Williams. (jn, ) |
Filing 8
ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #4 is denied without prejudice. "There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation," Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014), but the court may request that an attorney represent an indigent litigant on a volunteer basis under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). In deciding whether to recruit counsel, the court must engage in a two-step analysis, asking: (1) whether the plaintiff has made a reasonable attempt to retain counsel on their own or been effectively precluded from doing so; and, if so, (2) whether given the factual and legal complexity of the case, the plaintiff appears competent to litigate the matter themselves. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). The analysis does not focus solely on the plaintiff's ability to try the case, but takes into consideration plaintiff's ability to gather evidence and prepare and respond to motions. Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013). Factors to be considered include: (1) the stage of litigation, Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 852 (7th Cir. 2010); (2) plaintiff's submissions to date, Olson, 750 F.3d at 712; (3) plaintiff's physical and mental health, id.; (4) plaintiff's education level, communication skills, and litigation experience, Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655; and (5) the complexity of the case, id. at 655-56. After considering the above factors, the court concludes that solicitation of counsel is not currently warranted. The present order requires that plaintiff provide basic facts about the nature of the claim(s) that are within plaintiff's personal knowledge. If this case progresses, plaintiff may renew the request for attorney representation at a later date. Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 10/16/2023. Mailed notice. (jn, )
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER: Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #5 is denied without prejudice to renewal. Plaintiff has not filled out the correct (current) application form. The correct form can be found at https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/OnlineForms.aspx. The Clerk's Office is directed to mail plaintiff a copy of the in forma pauperis application form. 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 chooses to proceed with this case, plaintiff must by 10/31/2023 file a properly supported amended in forma pauperis application that accurately discloses all of plaintiff's 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 10/16/2023. Mailed notice. (jn, )
|
| 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. (jn, ) |
| Filing 5 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Marcealous Williams for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (jn, ) |
| Filing 4 MOTION by Plaintiff Marcealous Williams for attorney representation. (jn, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Marcealous Williams. (jn, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (jn, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Marcealous Williams. (jn, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (jn, ) |
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.
