White v. Polcyn et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Plaintiff Frank W. White's application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 52 is denied, as his is motion for appointment of counsel 53 . In addition, Mr. White's motion for a mental examination 50 and his supplemental motion 51 are terminated as moot because the court does not have jurisdiction over those motions following the filing of Mr. White's notice of appeal. 43 Signed by the Honorable James F. Holderman on 3/4/2013:Notice mailed by judge's staff (ntf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
FRANK W. WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES POLCYN, OWCP District Director,
ANTONIA A. RIOS, OWCP District Director,
HILDA L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 12 C 5176

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES F. HOLDERMAN, Chief Judge:
For the reasons explained below, plaintiff Frank W. White’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal (Dkt. No. 52) is denied, as his is motion for appointment of counsel
(Dkt. No. 53). In addition, Mr. White’s motion for a mental examination (Dkt. No. 50) and his
supplemental motion (Dkt. No. 51) are terminated as moot because the court does not have
jurisdiction over those motions following the filing of Mr. White’s notice of appeal. (Dkt. No. 43.)
Statement
Requests to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) are reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. To
ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the courts, § 1915 allows an indigent
litigant to commence an action or appeal in federal court without paying the administrative costs of
the lawsuit. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 27 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324
(1989). However, the court must deny a request to proceed IFP if (1) the allegation of poverty is
untrue; (2) the action is frivolous; (3) the action fails to state a claim; or (4) the action seeks
monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Here, Mr. White has repeatedly sought the same relief from multiple courts, and his claims
have repeatedly been dismissed. (See Dkt. No. 41.) As a result, Mr. White’s claims in this action
were dismissed on the ground of res judicata. (See id.) Although the court does not doubt that Mr.
White sincerely believes that he has been wronged, and the court appreciates Mr. White’s sincerity
and diligence, he has had his day in court multiple times. Any further litigation of this matter,
which involves events that occurred over twenty years ago, is excessive, unnecessary, and
frivolous. Accordingly, the court denies Mr. White’s application to proceed IFP and his motion for
appointment of counsel.

In addition, Mr. White’s motion for a mental examination (Dkt. No. 50) and his
supplemental motion (Dkt. No. 51) are terminated as moot because the court does not have
jurisdiction over those motions following the filing of Mr. White’s notice of appeal. See Kusay v.
United States, 62 F.3d 192, 193-94 (7th Cir. 1995) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of
jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district
court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” (citation and quotation
marks omitted)).
ENTER:

_______________________________
JAMES F. HOLDERMAN
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Date: March 4, 2013

2