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.

Loras L. Steines v. Donald P. Welvaert

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION


June 10, 2011

LORAS L. STEINES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DONALD P. WELVAERT, MAYOR OF MOLINE, ILLINOIS, JEFF TERRONEZ, ROCK ISLAND COUNTY STATES' ATTORNEY, LISA MADIGAN, ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL, KIM HANKINS, CHIEF OF MOLINE POLICE DEPARTMENT, JEROME PATRICK, CAPTAIN OF MOLINE POLICE, TREVOR FISK, ) CAPTAIN OF MOLINE POLICE, TIMOTHY WALTMAN, MOLINE POLICE OFFICER, SCOTT WILLIAMS, MOLINE POLICE OFFICER, MARK SENKO, ROCK ISLAND COUNTY ASSISTANT STATES ATTORNEY, FRANK R. FUHR, JUDGE, PHILLIP KOENIG, ATTORNEY OF LAW, JOHN DOAK, ATTORNEY OF LAW, TOM GOCHANOUR, MOLINE CRIME WATCHER AND PETITIONER IN CASE # 10 OP 599 AND 10 OP 600, LINDA GOCHANOUR, MOLINE CRIME WATCHER AND PETITIONER IN CASE # 10 OP 599 AND 10 OP 600,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy McDADE United States Senior District Judge

E-FILED Friday, 10 June, 2011 11:48:40 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

On February 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 2) and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). Plaintiff sought to file claims against over sixteen defendants for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. After ordering Plaintiff to supplement his Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Text Order of 3/17/2011), the Court engaged in a review of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found that Plaintiff had failed to state any cognizable claim. (Doc. 6 at 2). Further, the Court denied Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, finding that he had sufficient funds to pay the applicable filing fees. (Doc. 6 at 3).

ORDER & OPINION

Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint, and held that in order to re-file any Complaint with this Court, he must first pay the applicable filing fee. (Doc.6 at 3). Because his Complaint had been dismissed, the Court also found Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel to be moot. (Doc. 6 at 3).

Plaintiff has now filed three additional motions with the Court: 1) Motion to Request the Court to Reconsider Its Decision to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 8); 2) Motion to Request the Court to Reconsider Its Decision to Deny Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9); and 3) Motion to Request the Court to Reconsider Its Decision that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel was Rendered Moot (Doc. 10). In his Motion seeking reconsideration of his status as indigent, Plaintiff provides no reason why the Court erred in its initial determination that he can indeed pay the applicable filing fees. Therefore, his Motion to Reconsider the Court's Denial of his Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9) is DENIED.

Accordingly, as the Court directed in its previous Order and Opinion, Plaintiff may re-file a Complaint in this Court in which he adequately states a claim for relief, but only if he first pays the applicable filing fees. Because Plaintiff has not done so, his other two Motions for Reconsideration (Docs. 8 & 10) are also DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joe B. McDade

20110610

© 1992-2011 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.