Wiggins v. City of Chicago Heights et al

Filing 9

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 4/3/2012: Plaintiff's motion (Doc 4 ) to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order to avoid the dismissal of his complaint. Plaintiff's motion (Doc 5 ) for appointment of counsel is denied. Mailed notice(vcf, )

Download PDF
Order Form (01/2005) United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Charles P. Kocoras CASE NUMBER 12 C 1985 CASE TITLE Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge DATE April 3, 2012 Wiggins vs. City of Chgo et al DOCKET ENTRY TEXT Plaintiff’s motion (Doc [4]) to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order to avoid the dismissal of his complaint. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc [5]) for appointment of counsel is denied. O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices. ORDER This case comes before the Court on the motions of Arthur Wiggins, Jr. (“Wiggins”) to proceed in forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees, and for appointment of counsel. A litigant may proceed in forma pauperis if he is unable to pay the costs of commencing the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). According to Wiggins’ financial affidavit, he is currently selfemployed and earns $12,000 annually. In the past twelve months, Wiggins, or someone in his household, earned $48,000 from an unidentified source and at least $4,000 in quarterly college tuition refund payments. He owns a home valued at $50,000, which is currently in foreclosure, and maintains less than $200 in his bank accounts. Based on Wiggins’ financial affidavit, he has not made a sufficient showing of indigence, and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Wiggins must pay the $350 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order to avoid the dismissal of his complaint. 12C1985 W iggins vs. City of Chgo et al Page 1 of 2 ORDER Turning now to Wiggins’ motion for appointment of counsel, a district court may, in its discretion, request that an attorney represent a party if the party is unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1). As discussed above, Wiggins has not made a sufficient showing of indigence. Accordingly, his motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Date: April 3, 2012 CHARLES P. KOCORAS U.S. District Judge 12C1985 W iggins vs. City of Chgo et al Page 2 of 2