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.

Martin Padilla v. David Baker

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois


November 30, 2011

MARTIN PADILLA
v.
DAVID BAKER, ET AL.

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

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [19] is denied.

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

STATEMENT

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Martin Padilla's (Padilla) motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. On September 30, 2011, the court denied Padilla's first motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis since Padilla had not submitted an in forma pauperis application form for proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois and had failed to indicate whether he received any income from sources other than those specifically listed on the form. The court gave Padilla until October 26, 2011 to pay the filing fee. The court also warned Padilla that failure to pay the filing fee by October 26, 2011 would result in the dismissal of the instant action.

Instead of paying the filing fee by the deadline given, Padilla filed a motion to reconsider and a second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On November 10, 2011, the court denied those motions. In making its rulings, the court indicated that Padilla had not shown that the court erred in denying Padilla's first motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and that Padilla's second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was deficient because Padilla failed to provide sufficient information concerning his financial status and did not properly complete his in forma pauperis application form.

Although the court denied Padilla's motion to reconsider and second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court did not dismiss Padilla's case. Instead, the court gave Padilla one final opportunity to provide sufficiently detailed information concerning his financial status. The court admonished Padilla that if he wished to proceed with the instant action, he should file a new in forma pauperis application together with a memorandum in the form of an affidavit indicating all income that Padilla or anyone residing in his household receives, the sources of such income, all valuable assets owned by Padilla or anyone residing in his household, and all expenses for Padilla or anyone residing in his household, including supporting documents. The court gave Padilla until December 15, 2011 to file the above-referenced motion and the memorandum. The court also indicated to Padilla that if he did not provide the above information, he could have until December 15, 2011 to pay the filing fee.

Padilla has now filed a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Since the instant action has not been dismissed, Padilla's appeal and corresponding motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis are premature. Therefore, the court denies Padilla's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

20111130

© 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.