United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
October 20, 2011
JOHN KEELER, ET AL.
TOM DART, ET AL.
Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan than Assigned Judge
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
As stated below, it appears that Plaintiffs have attempted to give the court the false impression that they brought only one prior action and they have not been forthcoming in their complaint with this court regarding matters that are relevant in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Therefore, the instant action is dismissed. All pending motions are stricken as moot. Civil case terminated.
O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff John Keeler's (Keeler) motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel. Keeler and his co-Plaintiffs submitted as the complaint a pro se complaint form for prisoners on which it instructs the prisoner to list all prior lawsuits they filed. Plaintiffs failed to provide any information concerning prior lawsuits they filed other than one or all of them filed one lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois, which was "dismissed." (Compl. 10). As to all other information concerning prior lawsuits, such as the nature of claims and the names of defendants, Plaintiffs repeatedly state "Forgot." (Compl. 10). It is incumbent upon Plaintiffs to retain some record of prior lawsuits that they chose to initiate, and they cannot avoid providing the court with information by claiming that they all have forgotten everything. Plaintiffs' claims that they forgot all relevant information relating to the prior cases that they brought do not appear to be credible.
A cursory check of the docket system for the Northern District of Illinois shows that within the last several years Keeler brought at least three prior lawsuits in this district. (08 C 2740);(08 C 4152);(08 C 7384). The docket system also indicates that Plaintiff Reginald Royal (Royal) previously filed a case in 2011, which was dismissed in February of 2011. (11 C 736). Plaintiffs do not explain why Royal cannot remember any information about a case that he filed less than a year ago. The court also notes that the complaint form completed by Plaintiffs does not require specific dates but asks, for example, only for approximate dates and their basic claims. It is not credible that Plaintiffs would not know at least a date or year for a prior case that they initiated or the basic premises of their claims that involved constitutional violations that they believed were sufficient to warrant bringing an action. Nor is it credible that Plaintiffs forgot every defendant and co-plaintiff that were included in all prior lawsuits they have brought. Plaintiffs have not provided any explanation in their complaint for being unable to provide at least some basic information concerning their prior lawsuits. Based on the record, it appears that Plaintiffs have attempted to give the court the false impression that they brought only one prior action and they have not been forthcoming in their complaint with this court regarding matters that are relevant in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Therefore, the instant action is dismissed. All pending motions are stricken as moot.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.