Williams v. Sgt. for Riverdale Police

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM Order: Pro se plaintiff John Williams ("Williams") has regrettably continued to ignore this Court's earlier memorandum orders (the first issued on July 15, 2015 ("Order I") and the second issued on August 14, 2015 ("Order II")), each of which called on him to complete and submit the form of Motion for Attorney Representation ("Motion") that was plainly essential to his ability to proceed with his claim of a violation of his constitutional r ights. In each instance this Court gave Williams fully four weeks to comply, so that Order II had set a September 11 deadline and concluded by stating:If the required papers have not been received here on or before September 11, 2015, this Court wou ld be constrained to dismiss this action for want of prosecution.With September 11 having come and gone without any response from Williams, no reason appears to justify any further extension. As forecast in Order II, this action is indeed dismissed for want of prosecution. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/15/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
A SERGEANT FOR RIVERDALE POLICE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 6134

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pro se plaintiff John Williams ("Williams") has regrettably continued to ignore this
Court's earlier memorandum orders (the first issued on July 15, 2015 ("Order I") and the second
issued on August 14, 2015 ("Order II")), each of which called on him to complete and submit the
form of Motion for Attorney Representation ("Motion") that was plainly essential to his ability to
proceed with his claim of a violation of his constitutional rights. In each instance this Court gave
Williams fully four weeks to comply, so that Order II had set a September 11 deadline and
concluded by stating:
If the required papers have not been received here on or before September 11,
2015, this Court would be constrained to dismiss this action for want of
prosecution.
With September 11 having come and gone without any response from Williams, no
reason appears to justify any further extension. As forecast in Order II, this action is indeed
dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: September 15, 2015