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.

JONES v. HARRISON

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


October 18, 2004.

Versuslaw JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
MARIAM HARRISON, Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Lois Jones brought this pro se action against defendant Cook County Probate Judge Miriam Harrison, alleging slander, conspiracy, violation of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We denied plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis and her four successive motions to reconsider. See Jones v. Harrison, 2004 WL 1088232 (N.D.Ill. 2004); Jones v. Harrison, 2004 WL 1199568 (N.D.Ill. 2004); Jones v. Harrison, 2004 WL 1803355 (N.D.Ill. 2004); Jones v. Harrison, 2004 WL 2095646 (N.D.Ill. 2004); Jones v. Harrison, 2004 WL 2260639 (N.D.Ill. 2004). Plaintiff has now filed a "Notice of Appeal." We understand this as a petition for leave to appeal in forma pauperis our decision to deny her original petition.

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. As our previous decisions on plaintiff's various motions to reconsider make clear, this is not one of those exceptional cases. Plaintiff has failed to state any basis for appeal in her new motion. For the reasons stated in our 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.

20041018

© 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.