Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:20-cv-03430_de6> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-03430_de6 RegisterActionDate "2020-07-17" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-03430_de6 RegisterActionDescriptionText "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 $400 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. An action is frivolous if it is clear that the legal theory or the facts alleged are baseless or irrational. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324; Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). Applying these standards, Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 4 is denied based upon the representation that she was last employed in March of 2020, earning $2,500 per month and has additional income as well. 4 at 2. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, she must, by 8/14/20, pay the $400 filing fee or file a revised IFP application demonstrating eligibility for pauper status. Additionally, Plaintiff's complaint suggests that she may not have exhausted the administrative remedies available to her, a necessary prerequisite to the filing of this lawsuit. See Smith v. Henderson, No. 99 C 8275, 2000 WL 655976, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 19, 2000) ("Title VII requires a person with a complaint of illegal discrimination (whether against the government or a private employer) to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit in court. For complaints against federal government employers, the statute seeks to remedy discrimination 'in part by creating a dispute resolution system that requires a complaining party to pursue administrative relief prior to court action, thereby encouraging quicker, less formal, and less expensive resolution of disputes within the Federal Government and outside of court.' Though the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, it is a condition precedent with which Title VII plaintiffs must comply.") (quoting West v. Gibson, 119 S.Ct. 1906, 1910 (1999) and citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); Cheek v. Western and Southern Life Insurance Co., 31 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.1994)). See also Pizano v. Fanning, No. 417CV04006SLDJEH, 2017 WL 3425172, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2017) ("The "exhaustion of administrative remedies is required when the Title VII plaintiff is a federal employee.") (citing Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704, 712 (7th Cir. 2006)); Barrett v. Frank, 776 F. Supp. 1312, 1314 (N.D. Ill. 1991) ("The right to bring a Title VII case against the federal government as a result of deprivation of rights, is dependent upon plaintiff's timely exhaustion of his administrative remedies."). Accordingly, before proceeding, Plaintiff should consider whether she has a factual and legal basis to pursue her claim at this time. Mailed notice (gel, ) (Entered: 07/17/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-03430_de6 AdministrativeID "7" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-03430_de6 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:20-cv-03430_de4 @default.