United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
August 3, 2004.
IGOR VLADIMIR ASLAN Plaintiff,
SHEAHAN, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Igor Aslan filed a pro se complaint against his
former landlord, his landlord's business partner, the Cook County
Sheriff, and directors and officers of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS). Along with his complaint, plaintiff also filed a petition
to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of
counsel. We denied plaintiff's petition and motion and dismissed
his complaint in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21,
2004. As we explained in that decision we did not have
jurisdiction over some of plaintiff's claims and other
allegations did not constitute claims upon which relief could be
granted. Plaintiff also filed a motion to reconsider, in which he
changed the focus of his claims from his landlords' tortious acts
ten years ago to plaintiff's unlawful and continuing detention by
the INS. In our Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 1, 2004,
we denied this motion, in part, because, contrary to plaintiff's
allegations, he was no longer being detained by the INS.
Plaintiff has now filed a "Motion to Appeals [sic] Case." We
understand this as a petition for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the
trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Seventh Circuit has cautioned that it is
"presumptively erroneous" for a court to grant leave to appeal
in forma pauperis after dismissing a suit as frivolous. Hains
v. Washington, 131 F.3d 1248, 1250 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing
Tolefree v. Cudahy, 49 F.3d 1243, 1244 (7th Cir. 1995).
Nonetheless, "[e]xceptional cases may arise in which a district
court grants leave to appeal in forma pauperis to a plaintiff who
appeals a close question under § 1915A in good faith." Hains,
131 F.3d at 1250. This is not one of those exceptional cases. For
the reasons stated in our two previous decisions in this case, we
find that this appeal lacks an arguable basis and deny plaintiff
leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.