IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
July 21, 2008
RONALD WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES F. BROOKS & ASSOC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
Ronald Williams ("Williams") has filed a self-prepared sprawling (and often difficult to follow) Complaint against two Arizona lawyers and an Arizona paralegal, accompanying his Complaint with two printed forms provided by this District Court's Clerk's Office, each being completed with Williams' handwritten insertions: an In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel ("Motion"). Although Williams might qualify for in forma pauperis treatment from a purely financial perspective, the Application is doomed because of the added legal requirement that such a pro se litigant must advance at least one non-frivolous claim (Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000)).
In this instance the Complaint is plainly frivolous in the sense that it obviously flouts the venue requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1391(a): There is no way in which Williams' action may be brought in this Northern District of Illinois against his targeted Arizona-citizen defendants. Accordingly the Application is denied, the Motion is denied as moot, and this action is dismissed (without prejudice, however, to Williams' ability to pursue his claims in an appropriate venue and in an appropriate court within that venue.*fn1