NADIR v. WILLIAMS et al
| MAQUEL NADIR |
| LARRY JR. WILLIAMS, DONNA WILSON, CARLTON MILLER, CLYDE V. ADAMS and ROWLEY SECURITY |
| 1:2023cv01634 |
| September 12, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Crystal S Wildeman |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. § 2003 Job Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 23, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 32 NOTICE of Change of Address for MAQUEL NADIR and Request for Docket Sheet. (Apartment #1524 added to existing address.) (Attachments: #1 Public Docket Sheet) (KAA) |
| Filing 31 MOTION to Reissue Summons, filed by Plaintiff MAQUEL NADIR. (LF) |
| Filing 30 Mail Returned as undeliverable. #27 Notice to Pro se Litigant, #26 NOTICE to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, #25 Magistrate Judge's Notice of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction sent to MAQUEL NADIR at 930 West 10th Street, Indianapolis IN 46202. (LF) |
| Filing 29 MOTION for Default Judgment, filed by Plaintiff MAQUEL NADIR. (CW) |
| Filing 27 NOTICE to Pro se Litigant - The following information is provided to pro se litigants to inform them about rules and procedures governing how they communicate with the Court. (LF) |
| Filing 28 MOTION Requesting Copies, filed by MAQUEL HARRELL. (AAS) |
| Filing 26 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (LF) |
| Filing 25 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (LF) |
| Filing 24 Case transferred in from District of Illinois Northern; Case Number 1:23-cv-01641. Original file copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
| Filing 23 TRANSFERRED to the USDC Southern District of Indiana the electronic record. (daj, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
Filing 22
ORDER: On August 16, 2023, the Court indicated its intention to transfer this case to the Southern District of Indiana and solicited the parties' views. (See ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff has since confirmed that he supports transfer. (See ECF No. 20.) Accordingly, the Court transfers this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, and denies Plaintiff's pending motion #19 without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana forthwith. Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 9/11/2023: Mailed notice (daj, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.]
|
| Filing 20 Plaintiff's Decision by Maquel Nadir. (daj, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 19 MOTION by Plaintiff Maquel Nadir to hold Rowley Security Accountable for Unauthorized Practice of Law and Motion to rule in favor of the Plaintiff with default judgment against Rowley Security Firm. (daj, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 18 EXHIBITS by Maquel Nadir (kl, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 21 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Telephonic status hearing held and continued to 9/19/23 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration #15 is denied. At the status hearing, the parties represented that Defendants reside in the Southern District of Indiana, Plaintiff now resides in the Southern District of Indiana, and the events underlying Plaintiff's complaint occurred in the Southern District of Indiana, even though Plaintiff brought this action in this District. It therefore strikes the Court that this case likely is not properly brought or maintained in the Northern District of Illinois and should instead be transferred to the Southern District of Indiana. 28 U.S.C. 1404 and 1406 permit a court to transfer a case in the interest of justice to another district in which the case could have been brought. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) ("For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented."); 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) ("The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought."). The district court has the authority to institute this transfer of its own accord. See In re Ryze Claims Solutions, LLC, 968 F.3d 701, 706 n.5 (7th Cir. 2020) ("It is well established that a district court has the authority to sua sponte transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. 1404."); United Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Bayshores Funding Corp., 245 F. Supp. 2d 884, 896 (N.D. Ill. 2002) ("It is appropriate for this Court to consider a transfer under [28 U.S.C. 1406] sua sponte."); see also Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466 (1962) ("The language of 1406(a) is amply broad enough to authorize the transfer of cases, however wrong the plaintiff may have been in filing his case as to venue, whether the court in which it was filed had personal jurisdiction over the defendants or not."). At or before the hearing, the parties shall inform the court whether they agree or disagree with transferring this case to the Southern District of Indiana. Members of the public and media will be able to call in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is 888-808-6929 and the access code is 4911854. Counsel of record will receive an email 30 minutes prior to the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Telephonic status hearing held. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 15 is denied. At the status hearing, the appearing parties represented that all parties reside in the Southern District of Indiana and the events underlying Plaintiff's complaint occurred in the Southern District of Indiana, even though Plaintiff filed this action in this District. It therefore strikes the Court that this case likely is not properly brought or maintained in the Northern District of Illinois and should instead be transferred to the Southern District of Indiana under 28 U.S.C. 1404 or 28 U.S.C. 1406, which permit a court to transfer a case in the interest of justice to another district in which the case could have been brought. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) ("For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented."); 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) ("The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought."); see also Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466 (1962) ("The language of 1406(a) is amply broad enough to authorize the transfer of cases, however wrong the plaintiff may have been in filing his case as to venue, whether the court in which it was filed had personal jurisdiction over the defendants or not."). The district court has the authority to institute this transfer sua sponte (of its own accord). See In re Ryze Claims Solutions, LLC, 968 F.3d 701, 706 n.5 (7th Cir. 2020) ("It is well established that a district court has the authority to sua sponte transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. 1404."); United Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Bayshores Funding Corp., 245 F. Supp. 2d 884, 896 (N.D. Ill. 2002) ("It is appropriate for this Court to consider a transfer under [28 U.S.C. 1406] sua sponte."). This case is set for a telephonic status hearing on September 19, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. At or before the hearing, the parties shall inform the court whether they agree or disagree with transferring this case to the Southern District of Indiana. Mailed notice (jjr, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Telephonic status hearing set for 8/16/23 at 9:30 a.m. Members of the public and media will be able to call in to listen to this hearing. The call-in number is 888-808-6929 and the access code is 4911854. Counsel of record will receive an email 30 minutes prior to the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 15 APPEAL by Plaintiff Maquel Nadir for reconsideration-Decision for dismissal of "Alleged" supervisors. (Exhibits) (daj, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 13 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Maquel Nadir. (daj, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 12 COMPLAINT filed by Maquel Nadir. (Exhibits) (daj, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
|
Filing 11
ORDER: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is granted. Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #5 is denied. To proceed in forma pauperis, an individual must show that, because of their poverty, they are "unable to pay court fees and costs while also providing necessities" for themselves and their dependents." Maboneza v. Kincaid, 798 F. App'x 19 (7th Cir. 2020); Adkins v. E.I.Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). In this case, Plaintiff's application that his last date of employment was 1/27/23, that he has no cash or other bank accounts, and that he is a full-time student with approximately $20,000 in school debt. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated his inability to pay the filing fee. With respect to Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation, "[t]here is no right to courtappointed counsel in federal civil litigation," Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014), but the Court has discretion to request that an attorney represent an indigent litigant on a volunteer basis under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). "[A] district court faced with a request for counsel must ask two questions: '(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?'" Armstrong v. Krupiczowicz, 874 F.3d 1004, 1008 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc)); see also Pickett v. Chicago 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."). Plaintiff's application does not demonstrate that he has made reasonable attempts to obtain counsel. He identifies only one law firm that he contacted. Moreover, Plaintiff's allegations are not complicated and the Court finds that he is capable of representing himself at this stage. Accordingly, that motion is denied. Lastly, the Court sua sponte dismisses Defendants Larry Williams Jr., Donna Wilson, Clyde Adams, and Carlton Miller. Title 28, Section 1915 of the United States Code permits the Court to dismiss, at any time during preliminary screening, claims connected to an informa pauperis petition if: (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious; (3) the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see also Coleman v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n of Wis., 860 F.3d 461, 467 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing 1915(e)(2)). According to the allegations here, these individuals are all supervisors with the Rowley Security Firm. But supervisors cannot be held liable in their individual capacities for discrimination under Title VII. See Passananti v. Cook County, 689 F.3d 655, 677 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Williams v. Banning, 72 F.3d 552, 555 (7th Cir. 1995). Moreover, even if such suits were permitted, any remedy Plaintiff would receive, if he were entitled to such, would be readily available from Rowley Security itself. See Filec v. Chicago Transit Authority, 156 F.R.D. 166, 168 (N.D. Ill. 1994). Accordingly, these Defendants are dismissed because the Complaint fails to state a claim against them. But Plaintiff may proceed on his claim against Rowley Security. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to issue summons for service of the complaint on the Defendant. The Court directs the Clerk to send Plaintiff one blank USM-285 (Marshal service) form. Plaintiff must return the completed USM-285 form for service on the Defendant Rowley Security. The Marshal will not attempt to serve the Defendant unless and until the required forms are received. Failure to return the completed USM-285 forms by July 31, 2023, may result in dismissal of this case in its entirety. The Court appoints the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the Defendant. The Court directs the Marshal to make reasonable efforts to serve Defendant. The Court authorizes the Marshal to send a request for waiver of service consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) before attempting personal service. Plaintiff is advised that she must promptly submit a change-of-address notification if her address or contact information changes. Failure to do so may lead to dismissal of this action for failure to comply with a Court order and for want of prosecution. This case is set for a status hearing on August 16, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 7/11/2023: Mailed notice (daj, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.]
|
| SUMMONS Issued along with USM 285 form, certified copy of order dated 07/11/2023 to the U.S. Marshal's Office for service as to Defendant Rowley Security via email. (daj, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 9 DIGITAL EXHIBIT submitted by Maquel Nadir For more information, please visit https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ExhibitDrop. If you wish to download a digital exhibit, please send your request to the Certified Copy Desk (CCD) inbox at CCD_ILND@ilnd.uscourts.gov. You will be provided with an invoice and charged according to the Fee Schedule. Once your payment has been processed, you will receive a URL via email to download the exhibit. (emc, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 7 LETTER from Maquel Nadir dated 3/17/2023. (ak, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| 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. (exr, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Maquel Nadir for attorney representation (exr, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Maquel Nadir for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (exr, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Maquel Nadir (exr, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (exr, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Maquel Nadir (Exhibits) (exr, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Case assignment: Random assignment. (exr, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 9/12/2023.] |
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 Indiana Southern 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.
