| Date Filed | Doc # | Docket Text |
|
| 2019-08-07 | 1 | RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Gwendolyn Young (Exhibits) (sxb, ) (Entered: 08/08/2019) |
| 2019-08-07 | 2 | CIVIL Cover Sheet (sxb, ) (Entered: 08/08/2019) |
| 2019-08-07 | 3 | PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Gwendolyn Young (sxb, ) (Entered: 08/08/2019) |
| 2019-08-07 | 4 | APPLICATION by Plaintiff Gwendolyn Young for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (sxb, ) (Entered: 08/08/2019) |
| 2019-08-07 | 5 | MOTION by Plaintiff Gwendolyn Young for attorney representation (sxb, ) (Entered: 08/08/2019) |
| 2019-08-14 | 8 | EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable John Robert Blakey for all further proceedings. Honorable Joan H. Lefkow no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 8/14/2019.(pk, ) (Entered: 08/14/2019) |
| 2019-08-14 | 9 | NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (pk, ) (Entered: 08/14/2019) |
| 2019-08-29 | 10 | APPLICATION by Plaintiff Gwendolyn Young for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Exhibits) (sxb, ) (Entered: 09/03/2019) |
| 2020-02-10 | 11 | MINUTE 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, Plaintiff's applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are incomplete, as Plaintiff failed to fully respond to questions 2b and 4a, d, and g. See 4 , 10 . Additionally, her complaint, which appears to seek to compel a response to a FOIA request for her debit card, is frivolous. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege some constitutional violation, her claim, which appears to have accrued in 1985 and 1986, see 1 at p. 2, would be barred by any applicable statute of limitations. E.g., Neita v. City of Chicago, 830 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2016) (claims brought under § 1983 are governed by the statute of limitations for personal-injury claims in the state where the plaintiff's injury occurred; in Illinois the statute of limitations for personal-injury actions is two years from when the cause of action accrued); Scott v. Bender, 893 F. Supp. 2d 963, 972 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims filed in Illinois is two years). Plaintiff's initial 4 and subsequent 10 applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied, and her complaint 1 is dismissed. Her motion for attorney representation 5 is also denied, both because her claim is frivolous and because she failed to demonstrate any attempt to secure counsel on her own. See Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010) (there is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal civil cases); Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013) (When a pro se litigant submits a request for assistance of counsel, the Court must first consider whether the plaintiff is indigent and has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on her own). Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (gel, ) (Entered: 02/10/2020) |
| 2020-07-10 | 12 | LETTER from Gwendolyn Young dated 7/5/20. (gcy, ) (Entered: 07/22/2020) |
 Hide Docket Events |
|
