Boothe v. City of Northfield, Illinois
| Scott Boothe |
| City of Northfield, Illinois |
| 1:2024cv04011 |
| May 15, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Robert Blakey |
| Constitutional - State Statute |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 ENTERED JUDGMENT Mailed notice(gel, ) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: On 5/20/24, this Court denied Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and advised him that if he wished to pursue this case, he must pay the filing fee by 6/3/24. See #5 . At that time, the Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply, the Court would dismiss the case. Id. Yet, to date, Plaintiff failed to comply. Accordingly, and consistent with this Court's prior order #5 , this case is dismissed. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915, is designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts while simultaneously preventing indigent litigants from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Before authorizing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must make two determinations: first, the Court must determine that the litigant is unable to pay the $405 filing fee; and, second, the Court must 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). The first determination is made through a review of the litigant's assets as stated in an affidavit submitted to the Court. The second is made by looking to the plaintiff's allegations. Here, Plaintiff's application fails at step one: he discloses income of $5,200 per month, plus an additional $4,200 per month as recently as 5/16/24; more than $36,000 in additional funds received in the past 12 months; $3,000 in his savings account, and a home worth $500,000. He is, in short, not a pauper, and the Court thus denies his application for leave to proceed as such. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this matter, he must pay the $405 filing fee in full. If Plaintiff fails to comply by 6/3/24, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice (gel, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Scott Boothe for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (received via pro se email 5/16/2024). (jb, ) |
Filing 3
ORDER: #Local Rule 3.3# requires that any document submitted for filing for which a filing fee is required must be accompanied either by the appropriate fee or an In Forma Pauperis Application and Financial Affidavit. No filing fee or IFP petition was submitted at the time of filing this matter. Boothe is directed to pay the required filing fee or submit a completed #In Forma Pauperis Application and Financial Affidavit# within 15 days of this notification. Pursuant to LR 3.3(f), failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action by the assigned judge. Signed by the Executive Committee. (jb, )
|
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (received via pro se email 5/15/2024) (jb, ) Modified on 5/16/2024 (jb, ). |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. FEE DUE, NO INFORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION SUBMITTED. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (jb, ) |
| 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. (jb, ) |
| MAILED copy of the Clerk's Notice entry along with the Joint Consent Form to Plaintiff. (jb, ) |
| MAILED Copy of Local Rule 3.3 and Copy of In Forma Pauperis Application and Financial Affidavit to plaintiff. (jb, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and by Scott Boothe (received via pro se email 5/15/2024). (jb, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Boothe v. City of Northfield, Illinois | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: City of Northfield, Illinois | |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Scott Boothe | |
| 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 | [ 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.
