Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ASLAN v. SHEAHAN

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division


August 3, 2004.

IGOR VLADIMIR ASLAN Plaintiff,
v.
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.

  CONCLUSION

  Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied.

20040803

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.