Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleBradley v. Washington et al
DistrictNorthern District of Illinois
Case Number1:2020cv07547
Date Filed2020-12-16
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeHonorable John Robert Blakey
PlaintiffChrishona Bradley
DefendantPerry Washington
DefendantTony Goldwyn
User-contributed Documents
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2020-12-161RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Chrishona Bradley. (lw, ) (Entered: 12/22/2020)
2020-12-162CIVIL Cover Sheet. (lw, ) (Entered: 12/22/2020)
2020-12-163PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Chrishona Bradley. (lw, ) (Entered: 12/22/2020)
2020-12-164APPLICATION by Plaintiff Chrishona Bradley for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (lw, ) (Entered: 12/22/2020)
2020-12-165MOTION by Plaintiff Chrishona Bradley for attorney representation. (lw, ) (Entered: 12/22/2020)
2021-01-118MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts while simultaneously preventing indigent litigants from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Before authorizing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must make two determinations: first, the Court must determine that the litigant is unable to pay the $400 filing fee; and, second, the Court must determine that the action is neither frivolous nor malicious, does not fail to state a claim, and does not seek money damages against a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (e). The first determination is made through a review of the litigant's assets as stated in an affidavit submitted to the Court. The second is made by looking to the plaintiff's allegations. An action is frivolous if it is clear that the legal theory or the facts alleged are baseless or irrational. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324; Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). Here, the Court denies Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 4 because it is incomplete. Plaintiff has identified no discernible means of support and has failed to complete several of the questions on the form, including question 3, which askes for information about any sources of income or money, and question 7, which seeks information about debts or financial obligations (Plaintiff wrote "don't know the exact amount."). See 4 . As a result, the Court cannot meaningfully assess Plaintiff's ability to pay the filing fee. Turning to Plaintiff's allegations, initially, Plaintiff has submitted at least three separate form complaints in a single docket entry, which is improper. Beyond that, none of the complaints (which are all only partially filled out) state a claim that would entitle Plaintiff to relief in this court. In her second complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she was raped, which is a horrific crime; but she fails to allege that the named defendants (Perry Washington and Tony Goldwyn) committed that act; instead, she references some act going on inside the White House and says she was raped in Oakwood Shores, Illinois. See 1 at 4. Nor does Plaintiff allege facts suggesting that her constitutional rights were violated, or that they were violated by a state actor, as required to state a claim under section 1983. See, e.g., Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005) (To pursue a Section 1983 claim for money damages against a state actor, a plaintiff must name the individual as a defendant in the action and set forth allegations establishing that the defendant caused or participated in a deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.); Wilson v. Warren Cty., Illinois, 830 F.3d 464, 468 (7th Cir. 2016) (To succeed on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove (1) that defendants deprived plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and (2) that defendants were acting under color of state law at the time; for a private actor to act under color of state law he must have "had a 'meeting of the minds' and thus reached an understanding" with a state actor to deny plaintiff a constitutional right.) (citations omitted). Plaintiff appears to allege that some of the defendants may have spoken to her child about "reality" and "lifestyle vibes," see, e.g., 1 at 14. But such allegations do not implicate the constitution. Additionally, in one complaint, Plaintiff concedes that she sustained no injuries as a result of the alleged conduct. See 1 at 34. For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 4 , dismisses her complaints 1 , and dismisses this case. The Court also denies Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation 5 . This case will not proceed and, in any event, Plaintiff has made no attempt to secure counsel in her own behalf. See Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014) ("There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation," but the Court has discretion to request that an attorney represent an indigent litigant on a volunteer basis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) if, after finding that plaintiff has made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel on her own behalf or been effectively precluded from doing so, the court finds that given the factual and legal complexity of the case, this particular plaintiff appears incompetent to litigate the matter herself). Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (gel, ) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar