IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
March 22, 2011
PATRICIA LOUISE HANSEN, PLAINTIFF,
RAY GRAHAM ASSOCIATION FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
This Court's March 14 memorandum order ("Order") dismissed, without prejudice, both the Complaint and action in which pro se plaintiff Patricia Hansen ("Hansen") charged her ex-employer with sex discrimination in connection with her firing. That dismissal was occasioned by Hansen's having left blank, in the form Complaint of Employment Discrimination provided by this District Court's Clerk's Office, the space where she was required to reflect her receipt of an EEOC right-to-sue letter.
Hansen swiftly responded by filing a copy of the right-tosue letter that confirmed not only its issuance and her receipt but also the timeliness of her Complaint. Because non-lawyer Hansen is obviously unaware of the technicalities involved in filing a new complaint as contemplated by the Order, this Court will treat her current filing as the equivalent of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to undo the dismissal, which it now grants.
As Order at 2 reflects, Hansen also qualifies for in forma pauperis treatment, so that her In Forma Pauperis Application is granted. But because she has failed to address the requirement set out in the Order as a precondition for consideration of her Motion for Appointment of Counsel, that motion remains denied.
This Court is contemporaneously issuing its customary scheduling order to enable the action to go forward. Finally, although the Marshals Service is technically required to take care of serving process on behalf of in forma pauperis plaintiffs such as Hansen, that appears to be viewed by that Service as a low priority function for an overly busy group--Hansen would do well to handle, or to arrange for, the service of process on her ex-employer herself.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.