Grasty v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. et al

Filing 9

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 1/17/2013: For the reasons stated below Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 8 is denied. Based on all of the below, the instant action is dismissed. All pending dates and motions, if any, are hereby stricken as moot. Civil case terminated. (For further details see written opinion.) Mailed notice.(ym, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

12 C 9141

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

1/17/2013

Diahann Grasty vs. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc., et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [8] is denied. Based on
all of the below, the instant action is dismissed. All pending dates and motions, if any, are hereby stricken as
moot. Civil case terminated.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Diahann Grasty’s (Grasty) motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. On December 14, 2012, the court denied Grasty’s prior motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because Grasty had not completed the in forma pauperis application form submitted to the court,
and thus had failed to provide sufficient information concerning her financial status to show that her motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be granted. The court gave Grasty until January 11, 2013 to
either pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in forma pauperis application form. The
court also warned Grasty that if she failed to pay the filing fee or file an accurately and properly completed in
forma pauperis application form by January 11, 2013, this case would be dismissed. On January 10, 2013,
Grasty filed the instant motion. However, Grasty still has not properly completed the in forma pauperis
application form, failing, for example, to provide the amount she received each month in salary or wages in
her previous employment. Therefore, there is not sufficient information to properly adjudicate her request
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and her motion is denied.
In addition, the Clerk of Court has informed the court that on January 11, 2013, Grasty attempted to
file a pro se document entitled “COMPLAINT Continuation” at the Clerk’s office. This court’s chambers
Page Inc., 2
12C9141 Diahann Grasty vs. Cambridge Integrated Services Group,1 of et al.

STATEMENT
was further advised by the Clerk’s Office that the Clerk’s Office employee at the counter who assisted Grasty
told Grasty that when the Clerk’s Office employee advised Grasty of a deficiency in the filing and that the
filing did not comply with court rules, Grasty became confrontational with the Clerk’s Office employee.
During such confrontation, Grasty proceeded to use her cell phone to take the picture of the Clerk’s Office
employee, even though the use of cameras is prohibited in the court building. As a result of Grasty’s conduct,
a Courtroom Security Officer (CSO) was called. When the CSO questioned Grasty, Grasty lied about her
taking the picture of the Clerk’s Office employee. However, when the CSO inspected Grasty’s cell phone, he
discovered that the picture of the Clerk’s Office employee had been saved on Grasty’s phone. In the first
instance, Grasty’s confrontational conduct and challenging the court rules in the Clerk’s Office shows that
she is not willing to comply with court rules. In the second instance, Grasty lied to the CSO relating to her
taking a photo of the Clerk’s Office employee. Such conduct requires an appropriate sanction. Based on all
of the above, the instant action is dismissed.

Page Inc., 2
12C9141 Diahann Grasty vs. Cambridge Integrated Services Group,2 of et al.