Padilla v. Baker et al

Filing 23

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 12/19/2011:The court gave Plaintiff until December 15, 2011 to file the below-referenced motion and the memorandum. The court also indicated to Plaintiff that if he did not provide the below information, he could have until December 15, 2011 to pay the filing fee. The deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed the below-referenced motion and the memorandum or paid the filing fee. Therefore, the instant action is dismissed. Civil case terminated. (For further details see Written Opinion.) Mailed notice.(psm, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

11 C 5684

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

12/19/2011

Martin Padilla vs. David Baker, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The court gave Plaintiff until December 15, 2011 to file the below-referenced motion and the memorandum.
The court also indicated to Plaintiff that if he did not provide the below information, he could have until
December 15, 2011 to pay the filing fee. The deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed the belowreferenced motion and the memorandum or paid the filing fee. Therefore, the instant action is dismissed.
Civil case terminated.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
On September 30, 2011, the court denied Plaintiff Martin Padilla’s (Padilla) first motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis since Padilla had not submitted an in forma pauperis application form for
proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois and had failed to indicate whether he received any income
from sources other than those specifically listed on the form. The court gave Padilla until October 26, 2011
to pay the filing fee. The court also warned Padilla that failure to pay the filing fee by October 26, 2011
would result in the dismissal of the instant action.
Instead of paying the filing fee by the deadline given, Padilla filed a motion to reconsider and a
second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On November 10, 2011, the court denied those
motions. In making its rulings, the court indicated that Padilla had not shown that the court erred in denying
Padilla’s first motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and that Padilla’s second motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis was deficient because Padilla failed to provide sufficient information concerning
his financial status and did not properly complete his in forma pauperis application form. The court gave
Padilla one final opportunity to provide sufficiently detailed information concerning his financial status. The
court admonished Padilla that if he wished to proceed with the instant action, he should file a new in forma
11C5684 Martin Padilla vs. David Baker, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
pauperis application together with a memorandum in the form of an affidavit indicating all income that
Padilla or anyone residing in his household receives, the sources of such income, all valuable assets owned
by Padilla or anyone residing in his household, and all expenses for Padilla or anyone residing in his
household, including supporting documents. The court gave Padilla until December 15, 2011 to file the
above-referenced motion and the memorandum. The court also indicated to Padilla that if he did not provide
the above information, he could have until December 15, 2011 to pay the filing fee. The deadline has passed,
and Padilla has not filed the above-referenced motion and the memorandum or paid the filing fee. Therefore,
the instant action is dismissed.

11C5684 Martin Padilla vs. David Baker, et al.

Page 2 of 2