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.

Brooks v. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION


August 18, 2009

HARRY BROOKS, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

Case No. 09 C 4682 has been assigned to what this Court's August 5, 2009 memorandum order ("Order") referred to as "a self-prepared single-spaced document captioned "Complaint of 7/31/09 Including Petiton [sic] for Immediate Emergency Injunctive Relief," brought against the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois" by Harry Brooks ("Brooks"). After the Order explained why Brooks' accompanying In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") had to be denied under established law and allowed Brooks something over two weeks within which to file the required $350 filing fee, Brooks has written out and filed several so-called emergency motions but has failed to show up to present any of them (most recently this morning), thus repeatedly flouting the requirement imposed by this District Court's Rules on anyone who seeks to bring any motion before the judge assigned to a case.

Most recently Robert More ("More"), purporting to act as amicus curiae on Brooks' behalf, has emailed to this Court two purported "emergency motions." Even apart from questions as to More's standing to do so (nothing is said by him on that score), both of those multipage single spaced documents is a sprawling and prolix submission that does little to bring some order out of the earlier chaotic presentations by Brooks.

Non-lawyers' filings are allowed added leeway (see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)(per curiam)), but such non-lawyers remain required to comply with the procedural requirements applicable to all litigants. When Brooks again failed to appear today, this Court directed the Assistant United States Attorney who did attend to monitor any future notices. As and when Brooks does bring an issue properly before this Court, it hopes to be in a position to deal with the matter. Meanwhile the Order remains in effect in accordance with its terms.

20090818

© 1992-2009 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.