Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-02732_de7> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02732_de7 RegisterActionDate "2019-05-21" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02732_de7 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. On April 23, 2019, Plaintiff 8677371 filed his Complaint 1 along with applications to proceed in forma pauperis 4 and for attorney representation 5 . Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) permits the Court to authorize 8677371 to proceed in forma pauperis if he is unable to pay the mandated filing fee. The statute "is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). 8677371 is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis if paying the filing fee would prevent him from purchasing the necessities of life. Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7th Cir. 1980). 8677371 in forma pauperis application 4 is incomplete and the Court is unable to consider it at this time. 8677371 reports that he was previously employed by Black Good Truck Co and received $3,300 a month. (Id. at 1). However, it is not clear how long 8677371 was employed there and he also failed to respond to question 4.A regarding the total amount of wages he received in the last twelve months. (Id. at 1-2). 8677371 indicates he has more than $200 in cash or a checking or savings account, but does not report the total amount. (Id. at 2). Further, 8677371 owns an automobile that is currently worth over $1,000 but declines to provide the other necessary information for question 8. (Id. at 3). Accordingly, 8677371 motion to proceed in forma pauperis 4 is denied. 8677371 must file a fully completed in forma pauperis application in order for the Court to properly evaluate his status. Although "[t]here is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation," Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014), the Court has discretion to request that an attorney represent an indigent litigant on a volunteer basis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). As discussed above, the Court is unable to assess whether 8677371 has the means to obtain counsel. "Courts need not recruit counsel for those who can pay." Malekpour v. Chao, 682 F. Appx 471, 476 (7th Cir. 2017). Beyond the principal consideration of indigency, in making the decision whether to recruit counsel, the Court must engage in a two-step analysis: (1) has the plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel on his own behalf or been effectively precluded from doing so; and, if so, (2) given the factual and legal complexity of the case, does this particular plaintiff appear competent to litigate the matter himself. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 65455 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). 8677371 has not demonstrated that he made reasonable attempts to obtaining counsel despite the application requirement that such information must be reported. (Dkt. 5, at 1). 8677371 also failed to answer Questions 4 and 8. (Id. at 1-2). Stones motion for attorney representation 5 is deficient and is denied. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) also requires the Court to screen Plaintiff's complaint, and to dismiss the complaint if the Court determines the action is "frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." Courts reviewing complaints under § 1915(e)(2) apply the same standard used for dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6). Coleman v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n of Wis., 860 F.3d 461, 468 (7th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 739 (2018); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). The complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S 602, 678 (2009). The statement must "give the defendant 'fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,'" E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, (2007)). 8677371 complaint is difficult to decipher and reads more like a letter to his insurance company than a legal complaint. There is no clear cause of action presented and large portions of the Complaint are incoherent. The Complaint falls far short of pleading requirements meant to put defendants on notice as to why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d at 776. Because the Complaint leaves the Court guessing as to what 8677371 claim for relief is, it is dismissed for failure to state a claim. 8677371 motions to proceed in forma pauperis 4 and for attorney representation 5 are denied. Further, 8677371 complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. If 8677371 wishes to proceed with this case, he must file an Amended Complaint that complies with Rule 8 and cures the deficiencies identified by this Court on or before June 7, 2019. Failure to comply with this Order by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 05/21/2019)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02732_de7 AdministrativeID "10" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02732_de7 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-02732_de0 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02732_de7 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-02732_de3 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-02732_de7 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-02732_de4 @default.