IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
September 20, 2010
RAMON PICKENS #K82154, PLAINTIFF,
ROBERT MOORE, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
Ramon Pickens ("Pickens") has used the form of 42 U.S.C. §1983 ("Section 1983") Complaint provided by this District Court's Clerk's Office to file an action against Parole Agent Robert Moore ("Moore") and the Illinois Parole Review Board. Pickens has accompanied the Complaint with two filled-out forms: an In Forma Pauperis Affidavit ("Affidavit") and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel ("Motion"). Because it is difficult to determine from Pickens' narrative in Complaint ¶IV whether he has a potential Section 1983 claim, this Court expresses no view on that subject. Instead, because Pickens does qualify for in forma pauperis treatment (that is, he is unable to pay the $350 filing fee), this Court grants the Affidavit's request for in forma pauperis treatment.
But because Pickens has failed to fill out the most important aspect of the Motion (the required statement in its paragraph 2 as to efforts he has made to obtain counsel on his own), this Court cannot provide him with pro bono counsel at this time. Instead the Motion is denied without prejudice, and a new set of Motion forms is being sent to Pickens with a copy of this memorandum order. If Pickens resubmits a Motion in proper form on or before October 8, 2010, this Court will act on it. But failing that, this Court cannot fairly be required to move Pickens' action forward.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.