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.

Peggy Richmond, et al. v. United States of America

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois


January 24, 2013

PEGGY RICHMOND, ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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 Peggy Richmond's motion for reconsideration is denied. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [14] is denied. Since Plaintiffs never paid the filing fee in this case and it was terminated, the motion for appointment of counsel [13] and motion for leave to file an amended complaint [14] are stricken as moot. Noticed motion date of 01/29/13 is stricken.

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

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Peggy Richmond's and Plaintiff Brady Richmond's motion for reconsideration, motion for leave to file an amended complaint, motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and motion for appointment of counsel. Since Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the court has liberally construed their filings. On September 11, 2012, the court gave Plaintiffs until September 20, 2012, to either pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form. Plaintiffs were warned that if they failed to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form by September 20, 2012, this case would be dismissed. On September 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed new in forma pauperis application forms, but once again, they were not properly completed and since Plaintiffs failed to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form by September 20, 2012, the court dismissed the instant action on October 2, 2012.

Plaintiffs now request that the court reconsider its prior ruling and reinstate the instant action. Plaintiffs indicate in their motion that they believed they complied with court filing requirements and discuss the merits of their case. However, Plaintiffs have not shown that the court erred in dismissing the instant action and have not shown that the instant action should be reinstated. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied. Since Plaintiffs never paid the filing fee in this case and it was terminated, the motion for appointment of counsel and motion for leave to file an amended complaint are stricken as moot.

20130124

© 1992-2013 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.