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.

Michael Williams v. Cook County States Attornies

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois


July 7, 2011

MICHAEL WILLIAMS
v.
COOK COUNTY STATES ATTORNIES, ET AL.

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

(M-14433)

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and for appointment of counsel [10] are denied.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Michael Williams' (Williams) pro se motion for reconsideration and motion for appointment of counsel. On March 10, 2011, the court denied Williams' first motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court gave Williams until April 19, 2011, to either pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form for proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois with a certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement. The court also warned Williams that if he failed to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form for proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois with a certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement by April 19, 2011, this case would be dismissed.

On March 28, 2011, Williams filed a second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Williams had not filed an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form. For example, although Williams indicated on his in forma pauperis application form that he has not received more than $200 in income from any source in the last twelve months, a review of his prison trust account showed deposits within the last twelve months totaling $245.00. Since the deadline had passed and Williams had not paid the filing fee or filed an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form, the instant action was dismissed.

Subsequent to the dismissal, Williams has mailed two letters to the court and various exhibits. In the letters, Williams presents certain letters and exhibits relating to his case. Since Williams is proceeding pro se, the court will liberally construe the filings as a motion for reconsideration. Williams has merely included in his filings additional information regarding the merits of his case. Williams has not shown that the court erred in dismissing the instant action for failing to file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form.

Williams also moves for an appointment of counsel. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot since the instant action has been dismissed. The court also notes that even if the motion was not moot, Williams has not shown that an appointment of counsel is warranted. See, e.g., Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654, 661 (7th Cir. 2007).

20110707

© 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.