Brown v. Hardy
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/15/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )
Brown v. Hardy
Doc. 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ANTHONY G. BROWN #A-72335, Plaintiff, v. MARCUS HARDY, WARDEN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No.
11 C 1717
MEMORANDUM ORDER Anthony Brown ("Brown") has filed a bulky self-prepared 42 U.S.C. §1983 Complaint against Stateville Correctional Center Warden Marcus Hardy, complaining of just about everything at Stateville. Brown has accompanied his Complaint with two other an In Forma Pauperis Application
Clerk's-Office-provided forms:
("Application") and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel ("Motion"). This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to
address flaws in those last two forms. As for the Application, it does not cover the entire sixmonth period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2)(in this instance probably September 7, 2010 through March 6, 20111, so that this Court cannot make the calculation called for by 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). Accordingly this action cannot go forward until
Brown provides the necessary information (and if he does not do so on or before April 1, 2011, both the Complaint and this action
Those dates are concededly estimates, based on Brown's March 6 dating of the Motion and a best guess as to application of the "mailbox rule."
1
Dockets.Justia.com
will be dismissed without prejudice). As for the Motion, our Court of Appeals teaches that any plaintiff who wishes to obtain the services of a pro bono lawyer must make an affirmative showing of unsuccessful efforts to obtain counsel on his or her own. (as Brown has) that he lacks funds. It will not do to say simply Accordingly the Motion is
denied, and for the present Brown will have to go it alone.
________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: March 15, 2011
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?