Byson v. Dart et al

Filing 12

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 1/26/2012:For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration 9 and appointment of counsel 9 are denied. (For further details see written opinion). Mailed notice(smm)

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

10 C 4635

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

1/26/2012

Sonyah Byson (–61604) vs. Tom Dart, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration [9] and appointment of counsel [9] are
denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Sonyah Byson’s (Byson) motion for reconsideration and
motion for appointment of counsel filed on December 23, 2011. On August 10, 2010, the court denied
Byson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court gave Byson until August 31, 2010, to pay
the filing fee in the instant action. The court also warned Byson that failure to pay the filing fee by August
31, 2010 would result in the dismissal of the instant action. The deadline passed, and Byson had not paid the
filing fee. Thus, on September 7, 2010, the instant action was dismissed. Byson now requests that the court
reconsider the dismissal of the instant action. The court will liberally construe the pro se motion as a motion
for reconsideration brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (Rule 60(b)). The relief that is
made available to a litigant under Rule 60(b) is “‘an extraordinary remedy and is granted only in exceptional
circumstances. . . .’” McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 327 (7th Cir. 2000)(quoting Dickerson v.
Board of Educ. of Ford Heights, Ill., 32 F.3d 1114, 1116 (7th Cir. 1994)).
Byson claims that she did not receive certain court orders. She also makes unsupported accusations
against the prison authorities, contending that they routinely conspire to destroy prisoners’ mail when they
are pursuing legal actions against correctional officers. However, Byson has not offered a sufficient
10C4635 Sonyah Byson (N-61604) vs. Tom Dart, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
explanation for failing to file the instant motion until approximately 16 months after the dismissal of the
instant action. Byson also offers as an explanation for her prior failure to file an accurately and properly
completed in forma pauperis application form that she completed the form “following the instructions of one
of the inmate legal assistants. . . .” (Recon. 1). No counsel has filed an appearance in this matter on behalf of
Byson and it is incumbent upon Byson to prepare her own filings. It is not a valid excuse for Byson to assert
that someone else told her what to put in her filing. Byson has not shown that the court erred in dismissing
the instant action and has not shown that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant vacating the dismissal
in this case. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied. The motion for appointment of counsel is
denied as moot.

10C4635 Sonyah Byson (N-61604) vs. Tom Dart, et al.

Page 2 of 2