Armstrong v. Dart et al
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 11/22/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LAMONT ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS J. DART, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16 C 3327
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On October 11, 2016 this Court explained orally to pro se prisoner plaintiff Lamont
Armstrong (“Armstrong”), for whom arrangements had been made to participate telephonically
in a hearing on “Defendant Sheriff’s Motion for Entry of an Order in Lieu of Answer,” just what
he had to do to obtain the assistance of designated counsel -- “something really essential to his
ability to proceed with his lawsuit.” 1 In accordance with that explanation and this Court’s
issuance of the memorandum order referred to in n. 1, this Court once more sent to Armstrong
counterparts of the Clerk’s-Office-supplied form of Motion for Attorney Representation
(“Attorney Motion”), explaining what Armstrong had to do to obtain the assistance of counsel.
That was this Court’s third effort to assist Armstrong, issued “[i]n the hope that the third time
may prove the charm.” 2
_________________________
1
What has just been quoted is drawn from this Court’s memorandum order issued on that
same October 11 date.
2
Once again the text quotation is drawn from the October 11 order.
That hope has gone unfulfilled, for Armstrong has still not complied with the
requirements of the Attorney Motion. Indeed, nothing at all has been heard from Armstrong
since then (the court docket’s last entry in the case related to the October 11 memorandum
order). Accordingly, this case is really a poster child for dismissal for want of prosecution, and
this Court so orders.
Date: November 22, 2016
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?