Wiggins v. City of Chicago Heights et al
Filing
9
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 4/3/2012: Plaintiff's motion (Doc 4 ) to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order to avoid the dismissal of his complaint. Plaintiff's motion (Doc 5 ) for appointment of counsel is denied. Mailed notice(vcf, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Charles P. Kocoras
CASE NUMBER
12 C 1985
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
April 3, 2012
Wiggins vs. City of Chgo et al
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc [4]) to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Plaintiff must pay the $350
filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order to avoid the dismissal of his complaint.
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc [5]) for appointment of counsel is denied.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on the motions of Arthur Wiggins, Jr. (“Wiggins”) to
proceed in forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees, and for appointment of counsel.
A litigant may proceed in forma pauperis if he is unable to pay the costs of commencing the
action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). According to Wiggins’ financial affidavit, he is currently selfemployed and earns $12,000 annually. In the past twelve months, Wiggins, or someone in his
household, earned $48,000 from an unidentified source and at least $4,000 in quarterly college
tuition refund payments. He owns a home valued at $50,000, which is currently in foreclosure, and
maintains less than $200 in his bank accounts. Based on Wiggins’ financial affidavit, he has not
made a sufficient showing of indigence, and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
Wiggins must pay the $350 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order to avoid the
dismissal of his complaint.
12C1985 W iggins vs. City of Chgo et al
Page 1 of 2
ORDER
Turning now to Wiggins’ motion for appointment of counsel, a district court may, in its
discretion, request that an attorney represent a party if the party is unable to afford counsel. 28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(1). As discussed above, Wiggins has not made a sufficient showing of indigence.
Accordingly, his motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
Date: April 3, 2012
CHARLES P. KOCORAS
U.S. District Judge
12C1985 W iggins vs. City of Chgo et al
Page 2 of 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?