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.

Banks v. City of Chicago

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


November 16, 2009

MICHAEL STEVEN BANKS #A81938, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court has just learned, as a result of its periodic updating of a printout of motions pending in cases assigned to its calendar, that Michael Steven Banks ("Banks") has taken an appeal from this Court's dismissal of Banks' pro se lawsuit and, in conjunction with that appeal, has moved for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.*fn1 This memorandum order hastens to address Banks' previously-unknown request.

In this Court's view, it is really an understatement to characterize Banks' ongoing efforts to proceed in forma pauperis as frivolous. As this Court's September 21, 2009 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") reflected, Banks had earlier accumulated three "strikes" in the terms defined by 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).*fn2 And that being the case, Banks was required to pay the full $350 District Court filing fee before he could go ahead with his lawsuit.

Nevertheless the Opinion went on to look at Banks' substantive charges and found them independently dismissible under Section 1915A(b)(1) as "frivolous, malicious, for fail[ing] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Although its extra effort was perhaps gratuitous, this Court engaged in that brief discussion to suggest to Banks that it would be a waste of money for him to scrape up the filing fee in an effort to proceed.

Nothing daunted, Banks then filed a motion fo reconsideration that in turn triggered this Court's brief October 14 memorandum order denying relief. And now Banks, as stated at the outset, is seeking to pursue his bootless claims at the appellate level.

And because Section 1915(g) applies to that effort as well,*fn3 his current motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied. And once again the inadequacy of his claims would serve as an independent basis for reaching the same result.


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.