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.

Piper v. Ghosh

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


October 5, 2010

AURELIUSE H. PIPER #N92986, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. PARTHA GHOSH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Although pleadings by pro se litigants are viewed through a particularly generous lens (see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)(per curiam)), and although special legislation has been enacted to address the in forma pauperis requirements of pro se prisoner litigants (see 28 U.S.C. §1915)("Section 1915"), there are some reasonable limits to the solicitude that should be extended to such filers. In this instance Stateville Correctional Center inmate Aureliuse Piper ("Piper") has tendered a 13-page pro se Complaint coupled with fully 90 pages of exhibits--but he has furnished only the original of those documents, not the required chambers copy for this Court or the six copies needed for service on as many named defendants.

This Court's September 22, 2010 memorandum order ("Order") (1) granted Piper's in forma pauperis request on the installment basis in accordance with Section 1915 and (2) ordered that Piper provide six copies of the Complaint--but not of the voluminous exhibits--on or before October 13, so that the Marshals Service could proceed to serve defendants as called for by Section 1915(d). In response Piper has just written this Court expressing his willingness to comply but explaining his inability to do so within the time frame established by the Order.

As Piper has requested in his letter, a photocopy of his Complaint is being returned to him together with this memorandum order so that he can make the necessary half-dozen copies and retransmit them to this District Court to enable the case to go forward with service of process. This Court sees no need to comply with his other request to return the bulky exhibits--those will remain part of the court record so that defendants can have access to them for purposes of preparing their responsive pleadings. Lastly, despite the delays that have taken place to this point, this Court expects that Piper will act as promptly as possible to comply with this memorandum order, so that this Court will retain the previously-scheduled status hearing set for 9 a.m. December 9, 2010.

20101005

© 1992-2010 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.