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.

Carter v. Baker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


April 25, 2006

WILLIAM DALE CARTER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TIM BAKER, BILL ANDERSON, BRENT FISHER, ADAMS COUNTY JAIL BOARD, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

Order

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The plaintiff's unopposed petition for attorneys fees in the amount of $1,417.15 is granted (d/e 141).

2) Costs are allowed in the amount of $60.64 (d/e 141).

3) The plaintiff's pro se petition for costs is denied (d/e 142). Even if the plaintiff was proceeding pro se (which he is not until the entry of this order), his petition for costs is not properly substantiated. It is not possible to tell from his submissions exactly what the disbursements were for, whether they were necessary and reasonable, or whether they are recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

4) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), the Court determines that 10% of the judgment awarded, or $300.00, shall be applied against the attorney fees awarded above. The Court is required to apply a percentage of the judgment, not to exceed 25%, against the attorneys fees awarded. In the context of this case, the Court believes 10% appropriately respects § 1997e(d)(2)'s intent to hold the plaintiff responsible for a portion of the attorneys' fees awarded, while also recognizing the plaintiff's pro se status.

5) The plaintiff's appointed counsel are hereby discharged. The court thanks appointed counsel for their professional and diligent representation, and for their pro bono service. The plaintiff proceeds pro se from the entry of this order.

6) The plaintiff's motion for the appointment of another attorney is denied (d/e 145), as is the plaintiff's "motion for a writ of execution" (d/e 144). This case is terminated. The Court has not retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. This Court therefore does not have jurisdiction over any claims of breach of the settlement agreement.

Entered this 25th Day of April, 2006.

20060425

© 1992-2006 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.