Randle v. Chase Bank et al

Filing 6

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on October 24, 2013, DENYING Plaintiff's 2 Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and 4 Motion for a Restraining Order. (MRD, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 24 October, 2013 02:59:38 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
HURLESTINE RANDLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHASE BANK, GREG HANEY, and
BEV DAVIS also known as BEV
ANDERSON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-01503-SLD-JAG

ORDER
Plaintiff Hurlestine Randle brings this case against her employer, Chase Bank, and two
coworkers for employment discrimination. Pending before the Court are her Petition to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2, Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 3, Motion for a
Restraining Order, ECF No. 4, and Motion to Subpoena, ECF No. 5. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court DENIES the first three motions, ECF Nos. 2–4, and defers ruling on Plaintiff’s
Motion to Subpoena, ECF No. 5.
DISCUSSION
I.

Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff states that she has a monthly household income of $1500, which exceeds the

2013 federal poverty level of $957.50 per month for a one-person household. She further states
that she receives $811 each month from Social Security. Plaintiff does not list any assets, which
is puzzling, because she lists a mortgage among her expenses and debts. She lists expenses
totaling $1603 per month, but it is unclear from her petition what some of these expenses are and
1

whether or not they are necessary expenses. Based on these facts, the Court finds that Plaintiff is
able to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED.
II.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel
The Court may request an attorney to represent a plaintiff who is unable to afford counsel.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Accordingly, the first inquiry is whether Plaintiff is unable to afford
counsel. Plaintiff’s representations to the Court regarding her financial situation do not
demonstrate that she is unable to afford counsel, so her Motion for Appointment of Counsel is
DENIED.
III.

Motion for Restraining Order
The Court interprets Plaintiff’s Motion for Restraining Order, ECF No. 4, as a motion for

a temporary restraining order without notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). She
seeks this extraordinary remedy against the two individual defendants, Haney and Davis. Rule
65(b)(1) requires that:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before
the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and
the reasons why it should not be required.
Here, Plaintiff alleges that she fears for her life and that she has people stalking her every single
day. Pl.’s Mot. TRO, ¶ 16, ECF No. 4. However, the most recent incident that she specifically
describes is a phone threat on August 8, 2013. Most of the threatening conduct that Plaintiff
describes allegedly occurred in 2011. There is some indication, moreover, that Plaintiff is not
currently working alongside the Haney or Davis; she states in her prayer for relief “whenever I
return to work . . . .” Compl., ¶ 13(f), ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s fear of Defendants Haney and

2

Davis would explain her reluctance to give notice, but given the lack of evidence to show that
Plaintiff’s anticipated injury, loss, or damage would be both “immediate and irreparable,” the
Court must deny Plaintiff’s Motion. If she has additional evidence or conditions change,
Plaintiff is permitted to file a new motion for a temporary restraining order, and Plaintiff is also
advised that she may file a motion for a preliminary injunction if that was her intention. In either
event, however, Plaintiff’s motion should conform to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65. Plaintiff is also advised to more specifically describe the protection she seeks, as
contemplated in Rule 65(d)(1).
IV.

Motion to Subpoena
This Motion being premature, the Court will defer ruling on it.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2, Motion for Appointment of

Counsel, ECF No. 3, and Motion for a Restraining Order, ECF No. 4, are DENIED. The Court
defers ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena, ECF No. 5.

Entered this 24th day of October, 2013.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3