Yates v. Georgian Terrace Hotel, The et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/11/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
FRANCINE YATES,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGIAN TERRACE HOTEL,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

11 C 5053

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court had thought that its July 28, 2011 memorandum
order (“Order”), denying the motion of pro se plaintiff Francine
Yates (“Yates”) to proceed in forma pauperis, was pretty much
self-explanatory.

As the Order explained, there was no problem

with Yates’ demonstration that she qualified financially for in
forma pauperis status--that is, that she could not pay the $350
filing fee in advance.

Instead Yates’ problem was that her self-

prepared Complaint was clearly frivolous in the legal sense, and
that was true in a host of ways that this Court saw no need to
spell out exhaustively.
Now Yates has filed another self-prepared document, this
time captioned “Plaintiff’s Motion To Approve the Informa [sic]
Pauperis Application or Extend the Informa Pauperis Application’s
Deadline.”

It is understandable that, as a nonlawyer, Yates is

unaware that this District Court’s local rules require that any
motion must also specify a date when it is to be presented to the
court, with the opposing party to be notified both of the motion

and of the proposed presentment date.

That, however, is not the

real problem with her current motion.
Yates’ difficulty is rather created by the fact that she has
obviously not understood the message that this Court sought to
convey in footnote 2 of the Order.

Accordingly, in her own

interest this Court’s perspective on the matter ought to be
repeated in even more direct language.
On that score this Court’s evaluation of what Yates has
alleged is that if she were somehow able to obtain the funds for
payment of the filing fee so as to bring her lawsuit into court,
her case is so obviously unsustainable in this District Court
that it would be doomed to dismissal in any event.

That means

that she would have wasted money that she can ill afford to
lose.1
This Court therefore denies Yates’ motion to extend the
deadline to pay the filing fee from August 25 to September 30 as
she has asked.

What the Order has forecast if the fee is not

1

Perhaps Yates may wonder why this Court has not so ruled
from the very beginning, rather than setting a time within which
the filing fee might be paid. That is so simply because the only
thing a court can decide when a plaintiff asks for in forma
pauperis status is whether plaintiff is entitled to such
treatment--a plaintiff’s inability to pay the fee up front is not
a legitimate ground for dismissing the lawsuit at that point, for
every party has the right to pay the filing fee and allow the
court to consider the lawsuit on its merits, even though that
consideration will inevitably result in dismissal.
2

paid by August 25 remains in effect.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

August 11, 2011

3