IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
July 26, 2011
DIANNE KAMPINEN, PLAINTIFF,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
This Court has received a copy of the Notice of Appeal just filed by pro se plaintiff Dianne Kampinen ("Kampinen"), purporting to take an appeal from this Court's denial of appointment of a second lawyer to represent her pro bono publico after the initially appointed member of this District Court's trial bar had withdrawn from the case. This Court's June 24, 2011 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") sets out the circumstances in some detail and concludes in this fashion:
But in any event this Court is called upon to exercise its judgment under Rule 24(a)(3)(A). On that score it determines that Kampinen's proposed appeal does not qualify in terms of its legal nonfrivolousness for the reasons indicated by this memorandum opinion and order (a determination that also encompasses this Court's finding that the proposed appeal would not qualify as having been taken in good faith in the objective sense). Hence this Court "certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith [and] finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis," and it has stated its reasons for that certification and finding in this opinion.
As the Opinion had earlier stated, in forma pauperis status on appeal "requires not only the proposed appellant's showing of financial inability to pay the filing fee ($455 in the case of an appeal) but also the appellant's assertion of a non-frivolous claim in the legal sense." This current attempted interlocutory appeal does not qualify in the latter respect, and this Court accordingly reconfirms its denial of Kampinen's effort to obtain in forma pauperis treatment on appeal. Kampinen may of course tender that issue to the Court of Appeals for its consideration.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.