Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-06991_de31> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-06991_de31 RegisterActionDate "2009-07-07" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-06991_de31 RegisterActionDescriptionText "EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Plaintiff-Appellant 35ACECC (hereinafter 35ACECC) on March 19, 2009, filed a Notice of Appeal in civil action number 02 C 6581. The Seventh Circuit initially dismissed Chapmans appeal for failure to timely pay the required docketing fee, but reinstated the appeal in light of Chapmans assertion that he had a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pending before the Executive Committee for the Northern District of Illinois. As discussed in detail below, this assertion was untrue. Nevertheless, on May 21, 2009, the Seventh Circuit ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer Chapmans motion to proceed in forma pauperis to the Clerk of the district court for a ruling. (Appellate Case No. 09-1748, Dkt. No. 12.) The Executive Committee, being fully apprised of the circumstances in this case, denies Chapmans motion because Chapmans appeal is frivolous, as explained in the Statement section of this Order.STATEMENTOn September 17, 2002, the Executive Committee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered an order requiring that it screen and approve all of Chapmans filings in the district court before accepting his submissions (with an exception for filings related to criminal or habeas corpus proceedings). When this order proved ineffective in stopping Chapmans submissions of documents to the Clerk of Court which were nothing more than attempted frivolous filings, the Executive Committee entered an order on June 16, 2008, directing the Clerk of Court to destroy any documents submitted by 35ACECC for a period of six months, after which 35ACECC was permitted to submit a motion to the Executive Committee asking that the order be modified or rescinded. 35ACECC appealed the Executive Committees June 16, 2008 order, which was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit on March 31, 2009. (Appellate Case No. 08-2781, Dkt. No. 8.)In the meantime, on November 6, 2008, 35ACECC filed a new lawsuit in the Central District of Illinois in case number 08 C 6991. District Judge Jeanne E. Scott transferred the case sua sponte to the Northern District of Illinois after finding that venue was proper here. On December 15, 2008, the case was promptly dismissed by District Judge Milton I. Shadur pursuant to the Executive Committees June 16, 2008 order, after Judge Shadur found that Chapmans frivolous effort to bring this action in the Central District... was an attempted end run around the Executive Committees June 16 order. (Case No. 08 C 6991, Dkt. No. 13 at 3.) Judge Shadur denied Chapmans motion for reconsideration, an order which was appealed by 35ACECC on January 12, 2009. (Appellate Case No. 09-1095). When 35ACECC filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis and Motion for the Appointment of Counsel before Judge Shadur on January 26, 2009 (Case No. 08 C 6991, Dkt. No. 22), Judge Shadur referred the motions to the Executive Committee for consideration.On February 19, 2009, the Executive Committee denied 35ACECC leave to file the motions submitted on January 26, 2009 in case number 08 C 6991 and extended Chapmans filing ban for six more months. (Case No. 02 C 6581, Dkt. No. 45.) 35ACECC appealed this ruling on March 19, 2009. (Appellate Case No. 09-1748.) As discussed above, the Seventh Circuit initially dismissed Chapmans appeal for failure to timely pay the required docketing fee, but reinstated the appeal in light of Chapmans assertion that he had a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pending before the Executive Committee for the Northern District of Illinois. (Appellate Case No. 09-1748, Dkt. No. 10.) However, at the time the Seventh Circuit granted Chapmans motion to reinstate his appeal, 35ACECC had no motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal pending before the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee had already denied 35ACECC leave to file his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeal of Judge Shadurs ruling, and 35ACECC had filed no similar motion in relation to his appeal of the Executive Committees denial. The Seventh Circuits May 6, 2009 order that Chapmans motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis be filed instanter by the Clerk of the Court and its May 21, 2009 order transferring Chapmans IFP motion to the Executive Committee fail to take into account the fact that 35ACECC is currently under a filing ban in this court. However, because the Executive Committees February 19, 2009 filing ban was part of the ruling appealed by 35ACECC in appellate case number 09-1748, the Executive Committee can only assume that the Seventh Circuit was aware of the filing ban and ordered the Executive Committee to rule on Chapmans motion to proceed in forma pauperis, regardless.To the extent that the Executive Committee has been ordered to permit the filing of, and issue a ruling on, Chapmans motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis Judge Shadurs December 29, 2008 order in case number 08 C 6991, the Executive Committee finds that Chapmans appeal is frivolous because Chapmans lawsuit in case number 08 C 6991 was filed while the June 16, 2008 filing ban was in effect and Judge Shadur was correct in dismissing the case. The Executive Committee accordingly denies 35ACECC leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeal in appellate case number 09-1095.To the extent that the Executive Committee has been ordered to permit the filing of, and issue a ruling on, Chapmans motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis the Executive Committees February 19, 2009 order in civil action number 02 C 6581, the Executive Committee finds that Chapmans appeal is frivolous because the Executive Committee was warranted in extending Chapmans filing ban in light of Chapmans continuing engagement in evasive filing practices for the purpose of avoiding the Executive Committees June 16, 2008 filing ban. The Executive Committee accordingly denies 35ACECC leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeal in case number 09-1748. CONCLUSIONAppellant 35ACECC IIIs appeals in appellate case numbers 09-1095 and 09-1748 are frivolous, and his motions for in forma pauperis status on appeal are both denied. Because appellant 35ACECC is pro se, he is reminded that since this district court has denied his in forma pauperis motions, he must re-file the motions in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 in the United States Court of Appeals if he wishes to attempt to proceed with his appeals. Signed by the Executive Committee on 7/7/2009:Mailed notice notice(wah, ) (Entered: 07/16/2009)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-06991_de31 AdministrativeID "26" @default.