Jackson v. Owens Corning, Asbestos Settlement Trust

Filing 5

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable George M. Marovich on 6/26/2012:Petitioner William Jackson's petition 3 to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Jackson's motion 4 for appointment of counsel is denied. Jackson is granted until 7/26/12 either to pay the filing fee or to file a new, complete and truthful petition to proceed in forma pauperis. (For further detail see written opinion). Mailed notice(smm)

Order Form (01/2005)

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

George M. Marovich

CASE NUMBER

12 C 4525

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/26/2012

Jackson v. Owens Corning Asbestos Settlement Trust

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Petitioner William Jackson’s petition [3] to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Jackson’s motion [4] for
appointment of counsel is denied. Jackson is granted until July 26, 2012 either to pay the filing fee or to file
a new, complete and truthful petition to proceed in forma pauperis.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Petitioner William Jackson (“Jackson”) seeks leave to file in forma pauperis his complaint against the
Owens Corning Asbestos Settlement Trust.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, when determining whether a petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis, the
Court engages in a two-step analysis. First, the Court examines whether the petitioner has sufficiently
demonstrated that he is impoverished within the meaning of the statute. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
324 (1989). Second, the Court considers whether the complaint is frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 31 (1992); Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 324.
Here, the Court cannot determine from Jackson’s affidavit whether or not he is impoverished within
the meaning of the statute. In his affidavit, which Jackson signed under penalty of perjury, Jackson states
that he has not worked since 1982 and that he has received Social Security disability benefits of $698 per
month since December 2008. Jackson lives with his wife at 1441 Wesley Avenue in Berwyn, Illinois.
Jackson failed to answer questions four through nine on the affidavit. Instead, for each question, he wrote in
“not applicable.” Those are neither adequate nor believable answers. For example, question number seven
asks, “Do you or anyone else living at the same residence own any real estate (with or without a mortgage)?”
Jackson answered “not applicable,” but a quick internet search shows that Jackson and his wife purchased the
home they currently live in for $265,000.00 on June 21, 2005. One wonders, in addition to wondering why
Jackson answered “not applicable” to the question about owning real estate, how Jackson paid for the home.
Did he and his wife take out a mortgage? Jackson has not worked since 1982. Did his wife have an income?
Does she still? Has she since retired? Does she collect Social Security retirement benefits or a pension?
Because Jackson has failed to answer the questions on the in forma pauperis affidavit, the Court cannot tell
whether he is impoverished within the meaning of the statute. Thus, the Court denies Jackson’s petition to
proceed in forma pauperis.
Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
The Court next considers Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel. The Court may, in its
discretion, request counsel to represent an indigent litigant if the individual has made reasonable efforts to
secure counsel, if plaintiff does not appear competent to litigate a case of this difficulty on his own, and if the
presence of counsel seems likely to make a difference in the outcome. Pruitt v Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir.
2007); Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 321-322 (7th Cir. 1993). In this case, the Court cannot tell whether
Jackson is indigent, so the Court must deny the motion for appointment of counsel. Even if Jackson were
indigent, the Court still would have denied the motion, because Jackson states that he has not contacted any
attorneys in an attempt to secure counsel. The Court cannot appoint counsel to represent a litigant who has
not made reasonable efforts to secure counsel.

Page 2 of 2