Wilson v. Legum Norman Midwest

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM Order: This Court's current printout of a Motions Report -- a report that reflects all motions considered as pending in cases assigned to its calendar -- includes Dkt. 11 in this action, which is listed as the application by plainti ff Thomas Wilson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("Application"). Although that listing is literally accurate -- Wilson has indeed filed such an Application -- it is not accurate in real world terms, because Wilson has already paid the $400 filing fee. Instead the Application is really a corollary to Wilson's effort to obtain attorney representation, an effort that this Court could not entertain because of his failure to report any efforts to retain counsel on his ow n (a requirement that our Court of Appeals imposes as a precondition to considering any designation of counsel to act pro bono publico). Accordingly the Application [Dkt. 11] is denied, a denial that does not bear adversely on the unresolved ultimate issue of pro bono representation by counsel. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/25/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEGUM NORMAN MIDWEST
33 West Ontario Street
Chicago, IL 60610,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 1638

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court's current printout of a Motions Report -- a report that reflects all motions
considered as pending in cases assigned to its calendar -- includes Dkt. 11 in this action, which is
listed as the application by plaintiff Thomas Wilson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
("Application"). Although that listing is literally accurate -- Wilson has indeed filed such an
Application -- it is not accurate in real world terms, because Wilson has already paid the $400
filing fee. Instead the Application is really a corollary to Wilson's effort to obtain attorney
representation, an effort that this Court could not entertain because of his failure to report any
efforts to retain counsel on his own (a requirement that our Court of Appeals imposes as a
precondition to considering any designation of counsel to act pro bono publico). Accordingly
the Application [Dkt. 11] is denied, a denial that does not bear adversely on the unresolved
ultimate issue of pro bono representation by counsel.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: March 25, 2015