Irfan v. United State Immigration

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 6/18/2012: We must therefore deny Plaintiff's application ( 4 ) to proceed in forma pauperis. We also deny Plaintiff's motion ( 5 ) for appointment of counsel, for two reasons. Pl aintiff has not established poverty at a level that warrants in forma pauperis status. Second, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she needs counsel at this time or has exhausted the search for a private attorney. [For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice.(mr, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Marvin Aspen

CASE NUMBER

12 C 4434

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/18/2012

Roohi Irfan vs. U.S. Immigration

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

We must therefore deny Plaintiff’s application (4) to proceed in forma pauperis. . We also deny Plaintiff’s motion
(5) for appointment of counsel, for two reasons. Plaintiff has not established poverty at a level that warrants in
forma pauperis status. Second, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she needs counsel at this time or has exhausted
the search for a private attorney.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
(Reserved for use by the Court)

ORDER
Presently before us is Plaintiff Roohi Irfan’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in her lawsuit against
United States Immigration. Before granting leave to file in forma pauperis, we must first determine whether or
not Plaintiff is indigent. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). We must also conduct an initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint
and dismiss the action if we find that: (1) it is frivolous or malicious; (2) it fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or (3) it seeks damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(I)-(iii). As to the second factor, failure to state a claim, we apply the test for dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6), which requires “that a complaint contain ‘enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.’”
Moore v. F.B.I, No. 07-1294, 2008 WL 2521089, at *1 (7th Cir. June 25, 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007)); see also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 2007).
In support of her allegation of poverty, Plaintiff submitted the required financial affidavit. She states that she is
not currently employed. (Aff. ¶ 2.) She reports that her husband earns $2160 per month, after payroll deductions.
(Id. ¶ 3.) She also received at least $200 in unemployment in the past twelve months, though the affidavit does
not indicate the monthly amount of those payments, or whether they are ongoing. (Id. ¶ 4f.) Plaintiff states that,
in the past twelve months, her husband received at least $200 (amount unknown) in other wages beyond his
salary. (Id. ¶ 4a.) Plaintiff has $800 in her joint bank account, and no monthly mortgage or car payments. (Id. ¶¶
7–8.) According to the affidavit, she and her two college-aged children rely on her husband’s salary, along with
her disabled brother. (Id. ¶ 10.) All in all, we find that Plaintiff has not established her indigence. Although her
husband’s annual net salary falls just below the 2012 Department of Health and Human Services poverty guideline
for a five-person household, Plaintiff appears able to pay the filing fee given her access to funds in her bank
account as well as other income the family has received—and perhaps continues to receive. We must therefore
deny Plaintiff’s petition.
We also deny Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, for two reasons. First, as set forth above, Plaintiff has
not established poverty at a level that warrants in forma pauperis status. Second, Plaintiff has not demonstrated
12C4434 Roohi Irfan vs. U.S. Immigration

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
that she needs counsel at this time or has exhausted the search for a private attorney. In order for us to grant a
motion for appointment of counsel, the litigant must: (1) make a reasonable attempt to obtain private counsel,
Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995), and (2) appear incapable of proceeding without
representation, Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993). See also Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655–58
(7th Cir. 2007); Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006–09 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff’s motion identifies one
firm she has contacted about this case, and this meager effort is not reasonable. (Mot. ¶ 2.) Moreover, we
typically require a litigant to submit documentation that demonstrates the refusal of numerous attorneys to accept
the case. See Benford v. Cahill-Masching, No. 03 C 2643, 2003 WL 22669036, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2003).
Plaintiff did not support this motion with copies of any solicitation or rejection letters, or other documentation to
prove she has tried in earnest to retain counsel. Finally, the legal issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint are not so
complex that a trained attorney is necessary at this early stage. Plaintiff, a college graduate, has been handling
immigration matters for her brothers for years and appears capable of proceeding without representation, if she is
not successful in obtaining private counsel.
In sum, we deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis as well as her motion for counsel. It is so
ordered.

12C4434 Roohi Irfan vs. U.S. Immigration

Page 2 of 2